Burke v. PHH Mortgage Corporation

Background

Joanna Burke, who represented herself, filed this action against PHH Mortgage Corporation; Hopkins Law, PLLC; Mark D. Hopkins; Shelley L. Hopkins; and Christina Gardner. The opinion describes the defendants as the mortgage corporation, attorneys involved in Burke’s earlier lawsuit in the Southern District of Texas, and an employee of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Burke sued over actions taken during that earlier lawsuit.

On July 14, 2023, Burke moved for advance approval of service-of-process costs, more time to seek an order allowing prepayment of those costs, and 90 additional days to serve the defendants. On July 17, 2023, the court denied in part and granted in part that motion. The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(2) allows recovery of expenses later incurred when a defendant refuses to waive service, but does not authorize prepayment of service costs. The court ordered Burke to serve the complaint, directed her to explain why the case should not be transferred or dismissed for improper venue, and directed her to establish that Minnesota was an appropriate venue. Burke later sought an interlocutory appeal and asked the court to take judicial notice of two documents.

Report and Recommendation and Objections

A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the complaint because venue was improper. Burke objected. The court explained that it reviews the challenged portions of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation independently, but reviews repeated arguments or nonspecific objections for clear error. Although the court liberally interpreted Burke’s filings because she represented herself, it found that she did not identify any specific portion of the recommendation to which she objected and merely repeated arguments previously presented to the magistrate judge. The court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error.

Venue Analysis

The court held that Burke’s complaint did not establish that any defendant resided in Minnesota or that the events giving rise to her claims occurred in Minnesota. Federal venue law generally permits a civil action in a district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state as that district, or in a district where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred. Burke’s response to the order to show cause did not provide information showing that Minnesota was the proper venue. Her argument that the lawsuit involved the “judicial machinery” did not make Minnesota a proper venue.

Federal law permits a district court to dismiss or transfer a case filed in an improper venue. The court concluded that dismissal without prejudice was warranted so Burke could file the complaint in the proper judicial district. Because of that decision, the court did not address Burke’s remaining motions.

Disposition

The court overruled Burke’s objection to the report and recommendation, adopted the report and recommendation, and dismissed Burke’s complaint without prejudice. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.