Trottier v. Gainor
- David Doty
- 0:21-cv-01759
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Trottier v. Gainor, the court transferred the case to Minnesota for improper venue without deciding the claims’ merits.
Katherine Mary Trottier and the defendants named in the case. The case was transferred from the District of Nevada to the District of Minnesota, and the Nevada case was closed.
What happened
In Trottier v. Gainor, the Nevada federal court reviewed a case filed by Katherine Mary Trottier. The court noted that Trottier had not filed a properly signed complaint but had asked to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court found that Nevada was not a proper venue. It said the defendants did not all reside there and that the record showed no connection between Nevada and the events or property involved; Minnesota appeared to be the only connected district.
The court ordered the clerk to transfer the case to the District of Minnesota and close the Nevada case. The court, acting through an unnamed magistrate judge, did not decide whether the case could proceed, whether the complaint’s signature problem should be addressed, or whether the fee application should be granted.
The detailed version
- Trottier v. Gainor · No. 0:21-cv-01759
- David Doty
- Aug. 3, 2021
Background
Katherine Mary Trottier sued John Gainor and other defendants. The opinion states that the case was one of 140 cases initiated by Hank Falstad, who identified himself as an Americans with Disabilities Act architect. The court had previously required Trottier to file a complaint properly signed by her or by a licensed attorney and either pay the filing fee or apply to proceed without paying it. Trottier did not file a properly signed complaint, but she filed an application to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Venue ruling
The court applied the federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), which identifies districts where a civil case may be filed. It concluded that Nevada was not a proper venue because the defendants did not all reside there and the record showed no connection between Nevada and the events, omissions, or property involved in the case. The court stated that Minnesota appeared to be the only district connected to the allegations.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a court may transfer a case filed in the wrong district to a district where it could have been brought. The court ordered the clerk to transfer the case to the District of Minnesota and close the Nevada case.
What the order did not decide
The court expressly stated that it was not deciding whether or how the case should proceed regarding the failure to sign the complaint, the pending application to proceed without paying the filing fee, or any other issue. The transfer order therefore did not address the merits of Trottier’s claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.