Baidan

Baidan v. Romanovska

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaNovember 25, 20245:24-cv-04473California4,053 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 OREST BAIDAN, Case No. 24-cv-04473-VKD

Plaintiff,

ORDER SCREENING AMENDED

v. COMPLAINT UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915

DIANA ROMANOVSKA, Re: Dkt. No. 8 Defendant.

13 Orest Baidan, who is representing himself, filed this action on July 24, 2024 alleging five state law tort claims: defamation, fraud, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and extortion. Dkt. No. 1. Mr. Baidan also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. No. 2. On August 14, 2024, the Court granted Mr. Baidan’s IFP application but found his complaint failed to state a basis for the Court’s exercise of subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 5. The Court gave Mr. Baidan an opportunity to amend his complaint. Id. On September 12, 2024, Mr. Baidan filed an amended complaint, reasserting his state law claims and adding two federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.