Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Valentine v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Colorado

November 13, 2019

ELET VALENTINE, Plaintiff,
v.
THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a/k/a PNC Bank, NA, and PNC MORTGAGE, Defendants.

          ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING OCTOBER 22, 2019 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO, United States District Judge.

         This matter is before the Court on the October 22, 2019 Recommendation (Doc. # 109) of United State Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews, wherein he recommends that this Court dismiss this case with prejudice due to Plaintiff's failure to prosecute and comply with Court orders. On November 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Recommendation. (Doc. # 112.) For the following reasons, the Court adopts and affirms the Recommendation.

         I. BACKGROUND

         The magistrate judge's Recommendation provides an extensive recitation of the factual and procedural background of this case. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Accordingly, the Court will reiterate the factual background only to the extent necessary to address Plaintiff's objections.

         On January 7, 2019, this Court entered an Order denying Plaintiff's Motion for an Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. # 71.) Plaintiff appealed that decision. (Doc. # 73.) Despite the fact that Plaintiff appealed this Court's Order denying preliminary injunctive relief, this Court retained jurisdiction to consider the merits of the case. Free Speech v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 720 F.3d 788, 791 (10th Cir. 2013).

         Based on a subsequent Recommendation that Magistrate Judge Crews issued, this Court granted in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Thus, the Court dismissed most-but not all-of Plaintiff's claims in her Amended Complaint. (Doc. # 94.) The Court did not dismiss one claim, which remains pending. On September 17, 2019, however, Plaintiff filed a second notice of appeal regarding this Court's order granting in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. # 99.) The Court certified that appeal as frivolous because it did not pertain to a final order or judgment. (Doc. # 103.)

         The litigation process began to break down in this case after Magistrate Judge Crews issued his Recommendation regarding Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

         Beginning with her Objection to that Recommendation, Plaintiff has maintained that this Court lacks jurisdiction in this case due to her appeal of the Court's decision regarding her Motion seeking preliminary injunctive relief. See (Doc. # 93) (August 14 Objection). Plaintiff reasserted the same argument in a Motion for Reconsideration and multiple subsequent filings. See (Doc. # 96; Doc. # 104 at 3; Doc. # 106 at 3-7; Doc. # 110 at 1; Doc. # 111 at 1-3). Most recently, in her Objection to the instant Recommendation (Doc. # 112 at 2-27), Plaintiff repeated-verbatim in a paragraph that is copied and pasted throughout her filing-her position that this Court lacks jurisdiction twenty-five times.

         However, this Court and Magistrate Judge Crews have gone to great lengths to explain to Plaintiff that her position is incorrect. In fact, this Court has described why it retains jurisdiction in three separate Orders:

• (Doc. # 94 at 4) (quoting Magistrate Judge Crews' explanation of why the district court retains jurisdiction after a litigant appeals an order regarding preliminary injunctive relief);
• (Doc. # 103 at 3-5) (reiterating that the district court may consider the merits of a case after a litigant appeals a preliminary injunction order and explaining that an appeal is frivolous if it pertains to a non-final judgment);
• (Doc. # 107 at 1-3) (same).

         Unfortunately, however, Plaintiff appears unwilling to accept any interpretation of the law other than her own.

         Based on her fervent-albeit mistaken-belief that this Court lacks jurisdiction, Plaintiff has ceased to meaningfully engage in the litigation process. On October 1, 2019, Magistrate Judge Crews intended to hold a status conference in this case. See (Doc. # 102). However, Plaintiff failed to appear. Subsequently, the magistrate judge issued a Minute Order cautioning Plaintiff that her ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.