Courtney Kristek v. The Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company, et al.

Ninth Circuit affirmed jurisdiction over two insurance companies, one insurance agency, and the insured, Petitioner, when there is no complete diversity between the parties. Both lower courts agree that the parties are non-diverse. Specifically, Petitioner, Courtney Kristek, (hereinafter “Courtney” and her designated Hartford Insurance Agent, 360 Insurance Agency are both Nevada residents. There is also no federal question at issue. This is unrefuted. Yet, both lower courts fictionally finds jurisdiction when none exists. Ninth Circuit’s findings that it has jurisdiction over this case conflicts with federal statutes, US Constitution, US Supreme Court precedence, and its own circuit as well. Ninth Circuit affirmed that the removal was timely, and that the district court is allowed to not accommodate Courtney because of her disability for a hearing, and that the district court is not biased against Courtney, a female, by claiming that she is committing fraud by using her maiden name professionally, and her married name privately as both a party and counsel of record in the lower court proceedings. Ninth Circuit finds that the district court can discriminate against a person based gender and disability. Ninth Circuit’s order violates US Supreme Court’s precedence, the Americans With Disabilities Act, making the lower court’s rulings in complete conflict with federal statutes, its own circuit, the United States Constitution, and Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling when there was never a hearing for the 3 subject motions to dismiss along with the Ninth Circuit appeal. Ninth Circuit rules that parties are not entitled to hearings, ignoring Courtney’s due process rights. Ninth Circuit granted Courtney’s request for a hearing, but then initially denied her ADA request for a remote hearing to then grant the accommodation and then reverse course again and cancel the hearing. 42 U.S.C Sections 12101-12213. Ninth Circuit created new findings and cited new cases that are not a part of the record or the briefs, which is also a 14th Amendment due process violation. Ninth Circuit is in conflict with US Constitution, this Honorable Court’s precedence, its own circuit, and all of the other circuit courts in this country. Many issues of this case are in conflict with the Ninth Circuit, and the other circuits, including the issues of gender and disability discrimination. Furthermore, these same issues are of first impression to the Ninth Circuit and to the US Supreme which ultimately warrants the granting of this instant Writ Certiorari. The five questions presented are:

1. Does the Petitioner have to disclose her specific disability to request a reasonable accommodation to the lower courts for a remote hearing under the Americans With Disability Act, 42 U.S.C Sections 12101-12213 and does it violate public policy? 2) Do the lower courts violate Petitioner’s constitutional rights and public policy when they rule that she is not entitled to use her married and maiden name at the same time when fully disclosed at the start of the instant lawsuit?

2. Can jurisdiction be asserted over a party, Petitioner, when the parties are non-diverse and there is no federal question matter before the lower courts in a case and the removal is untimely? 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1332.

3. Can jurisdiction be asserted over a party when a petition for removal is not properly served, and is an order to dismiss a legitimate case in its entirety constitutional when a hearing never took place with all of the parties present? U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment.

4. Are court orders constitutional and do not violate public policy when they interfere in Petitioner’s constitutional right to appeal her case when no jurisdiction exists in the lower courts? Id, Fed. Rules Appel. Proced. 4,