Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01880/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01880-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 11cv1880–IEG (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HELEN L. HORVATH, dba HW ASSOC.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11-cv-1880 – IEG (BLM)

ORDER:

(1) SCREENING FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); and

(2) DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL

SERVICE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(d) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3).

vs.

ANTHONY TONEY, dba UPTOP GROUP

LLC, CAVA CUP SOCCER

TOURNAMENT, AMERICAS

BASKETBALL INTERNATIONAL, and dba

ABI SLAM FOUNDATION,

Defendants.

On August 19, 2011, Plaintiff Helen L. Horvath, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint

asserting claims stemming from an alleged breach of contract by Defendant Anthony Toney. 

[Doc. No. 1.] Plaintiff sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and appointment of

counsel. [Doc. Nos. 2 & 3.] On August 29, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff IFP status, but sua

sponte dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). [Doc. No. 4.] The Court also denied as moot Plaintiff’s motion for appointment

of counsel. [Id.] On October 5, 2011, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). 

[Doc. No. 6.] The Court now proceeds to sua sponte screen the FAC as required by 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B).

///

Case 3:11-cv-01880-IEG-BLM Document 13 Filed 11/01/11 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 11cv1880–IEG (BLM)

DISCUSSION

I. Sua sponte screening

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), notwithstanding any filing fee, the Court must

dismiss any complaint if at any time the Court determines that it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails

to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant

who is immune from such relief.” The sua sponte screening is mandatory. See Lopez v. Smith,

203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“It is . . . clear that section 1915(e) not only

permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a

claim.”); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (“[T]he

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.” (citation omitted)).

In sua sponte dismissing Plaintiff’s original complaint, the Court concluded that the

allegations were insufficient to support any of the federal claims listed in the complaint or to

establish subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. The Court, however, gave

Plaintiff leave to amend her complaint to cure the deficiencies. In her FAC, Plaintiff alleges that

she resides in California and that Defendant resides in Alabama. (FAC at 2.) She further alleges

that Defendant’s breach of contract injured her in the amount of $211,415.15. (Id. at 8.) Having

reviewed these and other allegations in the FAC, the Court is satisfied that the FAC adequately

alleges subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); see

also Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Inc. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam)

(“Jurisdiction founded on 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires that the parties be in complete diversity and

the amount in controversy exceed $75,000.”).

II. U.S. Marshal service

Because the Court granted Plaintiff IFP status, Plaintiff is entitled to U.S. Marshal service

on her behalf. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (“The officers of the court shall issue and serve all

process, and perform all duties in [in forma pauperis] cases.”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). 

Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that “the sua sponte screening and dismissal procedure is

cumulative of, not a substitute for, any subsequent Rule 12(b)(6) motion that the defendant may

choose to bring.” Teahan v. Wilhelm, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1115, 1119 (S.D. Cal. 2007).

Case 3:11-cv-01880-IEG-BLM Document 13 Filed 11/01/11 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 11cv1880–IEG (BLM)

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Fee Waiver for

Service of Summons by U.S. Marshal, [Doc. No. 10], and ORDERS as follows:

(1) The Clerk of Court shall issue summons as to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

[Doc. No. 6], as corrected on October 26, 2011, [Doc. No. 12], upon Defendants and shall forward

it to Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285. In addition, the Clerk shall provide

Plaintiff with a certified copy of this Order and a certified copy of her First Amended Complaint

and the summons for purposes of serving Defendants. Upon receipt of this “IFP Package,”

Plaintiff is directed to complete the Form 285 as completely and accurately as possible, and to

return it to the U.S. Marshal according to the instructions provided by the Clerk in the letter

accompanying her IFP Package. Thereafter, the U.S. Marshal shall serve a copy of the First

Amended Complaint and summons upon Defendants as directed by Plaintiff on the Form 285s. 

All costs of service shall be advanced by the United States.

(2) Defendants are thereafter ORDERED to reply to Plaintiff’s First Amended

Complaint within the applicable time under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a).

(3) Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendants or, if appearance has been entered by

counsel, upon Defendants’ counsel, a copy of every further pleading or other document

submitted for consideration of the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original paper to

be filed with the Clerk of the Court a certificate stating the manner in which a true and

correct copy of any document was served on Defendants, or counsel for Defendants, and

the date of service. Any paper received by the Court which has not been filed with the

Clerk or which fails to include a Certificate of Service will be disregarded.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2011 ________________________________

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:11-cv-01880-IEG-BLM Document 13 Filed 11/01/11 Page 3 of 3