Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-07218/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-07218-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-------------------------------------------------------------

NURBU LAMA, NAMYGYAL DHONDUP, 

also known as Chin Yuan Chu, and ZAMBALA 

INC. 

Plaintiffs, 

-againstNEW CENTURY FOUNDATION, YUAN 

MIAO, EMILIA WANG, WU HONG, 

ANGELA CHEN, DAVID HOLLAND, 

DOUGLAS PETTIBONE, CRAIG J. 

BEAUCHAMP, TOM MOORE, WINSTON 

KEVIN MCKESSON, GO DADDY, and 

FACEBOOK, 

Defendants.

-------------------------------------------------------------

X

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

X

1:19-cv-2169-GHW

ORDER

GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge:

On October 10, 2019, Magistrate Judge Freeman issued a Report and Recommendation

(“R&R”) recommending that Defendant Chen’s motion to dismiss (Dkt No. 8) be denied without 

prejudice. Dkt No. 52. In addition, Magistrate Judge Freeman recommended that the Court 

exercise its discretion sua sponte to transfer this action to the Northern District of California, 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Objections to the R&R were due on October 24, 2019.

Plaintiffs filed a document entitled “Order to Transfer” that requests that the case be 

transferred to White Plains or Washington, D.C. and states that the R&R “was not provided to 

Kiran Meettook ESQ or MMI LAW Inc either by electronic service or physical mail.” Dkt. No. 53, 

at 1. The “Order to Transfer” does not object to transferring the case to the Northern District of 

California but rather requests (or orders) that the case be transferred to White Plains or Washington, 

D.C. The Court does not construe this document as an objection to the R&R because “objections

USDC SDNY

DOCUMENT

ELECTRONICALLY FILED 

DOC #: _________________ 

DATE FILED: 10/28/2019

Case 5:19-cv-07218-EJD Document 54 Filed 10/28/19 Page 1 of 3
2

must be specific and clearly aimed at particular findings in the magistrate’s proposal,” which the 

“Order to Transfer” is not. Read v. Superintendent Mr. Thompson, 13CV6962KMKPED, 2016 WL 

165716, at *11 n.17 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2016) (quotation and ellipsis omitted). The Court further 

notes that Ms. Meettook is a lawyer and thus is not entitled to the “special solicitude” afforded to 

pro se litigants. Ruotolo v. I.R.S., 28 F.3d 6, 8 (2d Cir 1994). 

In any event, there is no basis to conclude that this case should be assigned to White Plains. 

See Local Rules of the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New 

York, Rules for the Division of Business Among District Judges, Rule 18: Designation of White Plains Cases, 

http://www.nysd .uscourts.gov/rules/rules-2018-10-29.pdf, at 117. Similarly, there is no basis for 

the Court to transfer the case to Washington, D.C. because, unlike the Northern District of 

California—the district that Magistrate Judge Freeman identified—there is no basis to conclude that 

this case could have been brought there. In addition, the Court notes that the Notice of Electronic 

Filing records that the R&R was delivered to “KIRAN MEETTOOK MMI LAW INC” at the email 

address “km@mmilaw.org.” “In cases assigned to the ECF system, service is complete provided all 

parties receive a Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) . . . Transmission of the NEF constitutes service 

upon all Filing and Receiving Users who are listed as recipients of notice by electronic mail.” ECF 

Rule 9.1, http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/ecf/ECF%20Rules% 20020119%20Final.pdf, at 8. Thus, 

Ms. Meettook was properly served.

The Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error and finds none. See Braunstein v. Barber, No. 

06 Civ. 5978 (CS) (GAY), 2009 WL 1542707, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2009) (explaining that a 

“district court may adopt those portions of a report and recommendation to which no objections 

have been made, as long as no clear error is apparent from the face of the record.”). The Court 

therefore accepts and adopts the R&R in its entirety. Accordingly, the Court transfers this case to 

the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 

Case 5:19-cv-07218-EJD Document 54 Filed 10/28/19 Page 2 of 3
3

The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not 

be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. 

Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates 

good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). 

The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this case to the Northern District of California 

without delay pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 28, 2019 

 New York, New York __________________________________

GREGORY H. WOODS

United States District Judge

Case 5:19-cv-07218-EJD Document 54 Filed 10/28/19 Page 3 of 3