Yenovkian v. Apple Card/ Goldman Sachs Banks ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Sonia Yenovkian, 4 2:24-cv-00119-RFB-MDC Plaintiff(s), 5 vs. Order 6 Apple Card/ Goldman Sachs Banks, 7 Defendant(s). 8 Pending before the Court are plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Conduct Limited Discovery 9 (“Motion to Conduct Limited Discovery”) (ECF No. 12) and Motion to Extend Time to Respond to 10 Motion to Dismiss (“Motion to Extend”) (ECF No. 13). 11 DISCUSSION 12 I. BACKGROUND 13 On January 17, 2024, plaintiff filed a Complaint (ECF No. 1) against defendant for defendant’s 14 alleged “[refusal] to accept lawful payment.” ECF No. 1 at 1:28. On February 20, 2024, defendant filed 15 a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 3) plaintiff’s initial Complaint. Defendant argued that “plaintiff’s 16 complaint is patently frivolous” and that plaintiff’s “lawful payment” was a “self-created ‘Certificate of 17 Payment.’” ECF No. 3 at 2:16-17, 20. Plaintiff responded to defendant’s motion (ECF No. 3) by filing 18 an Amended Complaint on March 1, 2024 (ECF No. 7). 19 On March 13, 2024, defendant filed a second Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8) now seeking to 20 dismiss plaintiff’s subsequent Amended Complaint. On March 18, 2024, plaintiff filed a Response (ECF 21 No. 11) to defendant’s second Motion to Dismiss. Defendant filed its Reply (ECF No. 15) to its second 22 Motion to Dismiss primarily arguing that plaintiff’s Response (ECF No. 11) contains no points and 23 authorities and thus, does not constitute an “opposition” under LR 7-2(d). 24 25 1 During this flurry of motions, plaintiff also filed a Motion to Conduct Limited Discovery (ECF 2 No. 12) and a Motion to Extend (ECF No. 13), which are pending before the Court. By these motions, 3 plaintiff requests to conduct discovery and to be allowed to more fully respond to defendant’s Motion to 4 Dismiss (ECF No. 8) after conducting discovery. While these two motions were pending, but after the 5 opposition deadline had expired, plaintiff filed a more substantive opposition (ECF No. 20) to 6 defendant’s second Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8). 7 This decision addresses plaintiff’s Motion to Conduct Limited Discovery (ECF No. 12) and a 8 Motion to Extend (ECF No. 13). This decision does not address the Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 3 9 and 8), as those matters are for the District Judge’s determination. 10 II. PENDING MOTIONS 11 a. Motion to Conduct Limited Discovery 12 Plaintiff’s Motion to Conduct Limited Discovery (ECF No. 12) seeks to conduct discovery in order 13 to substantively respond to defendant’s second Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8). Plaintiff, however, has 14 substantively responded (ECF No. 20) to defendant’s second Motion to Dismiss. Thus, plaintiff’s Motion 15 to Conduct Limited Discovery is moot. Moreover, the issues raised by plaintiff’s complaint appear to be 16 purely legal. Plaintiff appears to be part of the sovereign citizen movement and claims that her so-called 17 “Certificate of Payment- Legal Tender,” which she created, somehow constitutes “full payment” to 18 defendant for a sum plaintiff owes the defendant. Plaintiff does not dispute the amount she owes defendant 19 in her complaint (or amended complaint). See ECF Nos. 1 and 7. Thus, it is manifest that no discovery 20 is required to resolve defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, challenging plaintiff’s Complaint and whether 21 plaintiff’s self-created “Certificate of Payment- Legal Tender,” somehow constitutes legal payment to 22 defendant for debt owed by plaintiff. That issue may be resolved as a matter of law, without discovery. 23 C.f. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989) (holding that a complaint may be dismissed as 24 frivolous if it is premised on a nonexistent legal interest or delusional); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 25 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (“a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the 1 level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available 2 to contradict them.”). 3 b. Motion to Extend Time to Respond 4 The deadline to respond to defendant’s second Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8) was March 27, 5 2024. Plaintiff filed an initial Opposition on March 18, 2024 (ECF No. 11), which defendant argued was 6 a non-opposition because it was bereft of points and authorities. Plaintiff then filed her Motion to Extend 7 (ECF No. 13). While plaintiff’s Motion to Extend (ECF No. 13) primarily seeks to conduct discovery 8 before opposing plaintiff’s second Motion to Dismiss, the Court will construe the Motion to Extend to be 9 generally requesting an extension of time to oppose defendant’s second Motion to Dismiss See Erickson 10 v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (2007) ("A document filed pro se is 'to 11 be liberally construed.'"). On April 3, 2024, while her Motion to Extend was pending, plaintiff filed a more 12 substantive Opposition (ECF No. 20) to defendant’s second Motion to Dismiss. The Court grants in part 13 plaintiff’s Motion to Extend (ECF No. 13) to the extent that plaintiff sought additional time to file a 14 substantive opposition to defendant’s second Motion to Dismiss, as the Court construed. The Court denies 15 plaintiff’s Motion to Extend (ECF No. 13) on all other grounds. 16 ACCORDINGLY, 17 IT IS ORDERED that: 18 1. The Motion to Extend (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED IN PART to accept plaintiff’s April 20, 19 2024, opposition to defendant’s second motion to dismiss as timely. Plaintiff’s Motion to 20 Extend (ECF No. 13) is DENIED ON ALL OTHER GROUNDS. 21 2. The Motion to Conduct Limited Discovery (ECF No. 12) is DENIED. 22 NOTICE 23 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and 24 recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk 25 of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 1 |}may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 2 Thomas vy. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). 3 This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure 4 || to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court's order 5 || and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 6 || (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Pursuant to LR 7 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file written notification with the court of any change of address. 8 || The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s attorney, or upon the opposing 9 || party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of 10 || the action. 11 J29 - 12 DATED this 10 day of April 2024. A. th □□ 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. if ff \ ff ff i Se “4W41° 4 Hon. Maximiliavo D. Gouvillier III 5 United States Magistvate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25