Turner v. Keller Williams Realty, Inc.
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:23-cv-05533
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Turner v. Keller Williams Realty, Inc., Judge Chhabria denied a temporary restraining order and dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
Terrance Turner’s complaint and motion were rejected; Keller Williams Realty, Inc., and the other captioned defendants were affected by the case’s dismissal.
What happened
In Turner v. Keller Williams Realty, Inc., Terrance Turner sued Keller Williams Realty, Inc., and other defendants and asked for a temporary restraining order. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or events.
The court denied Turner’s request for a temporary restraining order as frivolous. It also dismissed the complaint without leave to amend because the court lacked authority to hear it under Rule 12(b)(1), finding the complaint wholly frivolous and implausible.
Judge Chhabria ordered that the court would not consider any further filings from Turner in the case. The order did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.
The detailed version
- Turner v. Keller Williams Realty, Inc. · No. 3:23-cv-05533
- Vince Chhabria
- Mar. 14, 2024
Background
Terrance Turner sued Keller Williams Realty, Inc., and other defendants. Turner also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. The opinion does not describe the factual allegations or legal claims in the complaint.
Rulings
The court denied Turner’s motion for a temporary restraining order, calling it frivolous.
The court dismissed Turner’s complaint without leave to amend. The dismissal was under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal when the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction—that is, legal authority to hear the dispute. The court stated that the complaint was wholly frivolous and implausible.
The order also stated that the court would not consider any further filings from Turner in this case.
Effect of the Order
The case was ended on a jurisdictional ground. The court did not reach the merits of the underlying claims. The dismissal was stated to be without leave to amend, meaning the court did not allow Turner to revise the complaint in this case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.