Boyd v. Planet Fitness et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
NORETTA F. BOYD,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 1:25-cv-00422-SCY
PLANET FITNESS,
NEW MEXICO SPORTS AND WELLNESS (HIGHPOINT),
KELLY EDUCATION,
ALBUQUERQUE PUBLIC SCHOOLS and
GREYSTAR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT,
Defendants.
SECOND ORDER REMOVING RESTRICTIONS ON DOCUMENTS,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL CASE,
THIRD ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT
AND ORDER REGARDING DIVERSITY JURISDICTION
Pro se Plaintiff filed six documents, including a motion to seal these proceedings, and
restricted access to those documents to “Case Participants” which deprives the public of access
to those documents. See Doc’s 1-6, filed May 5, 2025.
The Court notified Plaintiff:
There is a longstanding common-law right of public access to
judicial records. United States v. Pickard, 733 F.3d 1297, 1302
(10th Cir. 2013). This right “is fundamental to the democratic
state” and preserves “the integrity of the law enforcement and
judicial processes” by allowing the public to see how courts make
their decisions. United States v. Bacon, 950 F.3d 1286, 1297 (10th
Cir. 2020) (first quoting United States v. Hubbard, 650 F.2d 293,
315 (D.C. Cir. 1980), and then quoting United States v. Hickey,
767 F.2d 705, 708 (10th Cir. 1985)). The right of access is not
absolute, but the party seeking to seal a judicial record must show
“some significant interest that outweighs” the public interest in
access to the records. Helm v. Kansas, 656 F.3d 1277, 1292 (10th
Cir. 2011) (quoting Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1149 (10th
Cir. 2007)). This burden is “heavy,” and sealing is appropriate only
Case 1:25-cv-00422-SCY Document 29 Filed 05/13/26 Page 1 of 10

2
when the interest in confidentiality is “real and substantial.” Id.;
see 10th Cir. R. 25.6(A)(3) (requiring the movant to “articulate a
substantial interest that justifies depriving the public of access to
the document”); Brown v. Flowers, 974 F.3d 1178, 1187–88 (10th
Cir. 2020) (“We will not permanently seal any documents unless
[the movant] ‘overcomes a presumption in favor of access to
judicial records by articulat[ing] a real and substantial interest that
justifies depriving the public of access to the records that inform
our decision-making process.’ ” (quoting Sacchi v. IHC Health
Servs., Inc., 918 F.3d 1155, 1160 (10th Cir. 2019) (second
alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
McWilliams v. Dinapoli, 40 F.4th 1118, 1130-31, 1133 (10th Cir. 2022) (“Vague
and conclusory statements do not meet [the heavy burden to demonstrate a real
and substantial interest that outweighs the public interest in accessing the
documents]”). Plaintiff’s vague statement regarding retaliation and intent to
defame Plaintiff does not show a real and substantial interest that justifies
depriving the public of access to these proceedings.
Order to Show Cause Regarding Motion to Seal This Case, Doc. 8 at 3-4, filed May 6, 2025
(“First Order to Show Cause”). The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should
not deny Plaintiff’s motion to seal the proceedings in this case and unseal the documents Plaintiff
has filed and make them accessible to the public. See First Order to Show Cause at 4. After
Plaintiff filed two additional, apparently identical, motions to seal, and four other documents, all
restricted to “Case Participants,” the Court denied Plaintiff’s motions to seal and ordered the
Clerk to remove the restrictions from the 12 restricted documents. See Order Denying Motions
to Seal Proceedings at 4-5, Doc. 15, filed July 1, 2025.
Plaintiff subsequently filed six additional documents and restricted access to those
documents to “Case Participants” which deprives the public of access to those documents. See
Doc. 16, July 30, 2025; Doc. 17, filed August 26, 2025; Doc. 18, filed October 3, 2025; Doc. 19,
filed October 3, 2025; Doc. 21, filed November 24, 2025; Doc. 22, filed December 2, 2025. The
Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not make those six additional
Case 1:25-cv-00422-SCY Document 29 Filed 05/13/26 Page 2 of 10

3
documents accessible to the public. See Second Order to Show Cause at 4, Doc. 23, filed
February 12, 2026.
Plaintiff has failed to show cause why the Court should not make those six additional
documents accessible to the public. First, Plaintiff asserts “invasion of privacy and warranted
privacy concerns” are real and substantial interests that justify depriving the public of access to
those documents. Reply at 9, Doc. 25, filed February 28, 2026. Plaintiff cites 11 paragraphs in
the First Amended Complaint that “overwhelmingly satisfied this requirement.” Reply at 9.
Those paragraphs make general references to “invasion of privacy” but do not contain otherwise
private information.
Second, Plaintiff asserts that “national security and state secrets” and “trade secrets and
proprietary business information” are real and substantial interests that justify depriving the
public of access to those documents. Reply at 10-12. Plaintiff cites over 40 statements in the
First Amended Complaint that “overwhelmingly satisfied this requirement.” Reply at 10-12.
None of the cited statements contain national security and state secrets or trade secrets and
proprietary business information.
Third, Plaintiff asserts the right to a fair trial justifies depriving the public of access to the
documents but does not explain why public access to the documents would deprive Plaintiff of a
fair trial. See Reply at 13-14.
Fourth, Plaintiff asserts that “privacy interests of a person’s personnel file” justifies
depriving the public of access to the documents and cites several portions of the First Amended
Complaint. See Reply at 14-15. None of the cited portions of the First Amended Complaint set
forth private information in Plaintiff’s personnel files.
Case 1:25-cv-00422-SCY Document 29 Filed 05/13/26 Page 3 of 10

4
Finally, Plaintiff’s reference to portions of the First Amended Complaint does not justify
depriving the public access to any portions of the six additional documents at issue. See Motion
for Entry of Default Doc. 16, filed July 30, 2025; Motion to Expedite Ruling on Pending
Motions, Doc. 17, filed August 26, 2025; Entry of Right to Sue, Doc. 18, filed October 3, 2025;
Motion to Update and Amend Nomenclature, Doc. 19, filed October 3, 2025; Second Amended
Complaint, Doc. 21, filed November 24, 2025; Entry of Second Right to Sue, Doc. 22, filed
December 2, 2025. It is Plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate a real and substantial interest that
justifies depriving the public of access to the documents and the Court cannot carry this burden
for Plaintiff. See Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005)
(“the court cannot take on the responsibility of serving as the litigant’s attorney in constructing
arguments and searching the record”). Accordingly, the Court has not engaged in a review of
these documents to independently assess whether some justification for keeping them under seal
might exist.
For the above stated reasons, the Court orders the Clerk to remove the restrictions on the
six documents at issue in this Order and to make the documents accessible to the public.
Order Denying Motion to Seal Case
Plaintiff attached a Motion to Seal to her Reply to the Second Order to Show Cause. See
Motion to Seal, Doc. 25-2, filed February 28, 2026. Plaintiff moves to seal this case because she
has experienced “continued acts of public, workplace, employment seeking, domicile and
community harassment” including “monitoring via air surveillance . . . to track her position. Air
traffic protocols would presume a notification of state and/or agency as a requirement to
operate,” Plaintiff’s domicile “being entered into without authorization and damaged,” and
“knowledge of Plaintiff’s employment ending … as represented by a fire being set on a fence …
Case 1:25-cv-00422-SCY Document 29 Filed 05/13/26 Page 4 of 10

5
and paramedics/agency vehicle arrived to assist the circumstances” and executive management
notifying Plaintiff that “her position was in jeopardy, and she would be watched over the next
couple of weeks.” Motion to Seal at 2-4. Plaintiff states she “believes these acts are in
association with retaliation for Plaintiff’s previous case filing in the United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana Indianapolis Division” and “believes the intention of the engaged
former and new defendants is to further inflict public defamatory and retaliatory harm upon
Plaintiff’s person as evidenced and poses threats inclusive of a potentials of imminent danger.”
[sic] Reply at 4. Plaintiff does not explain how depriving the public of access to the documents
filed in this case will prevent alleged retaliation by “former and new defendants.” The Court,
therefore, denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal this case.
Third Order to Show Cause
Plaintiff has since filed four more documents restricted to “Case Participants.” See
Plaintiff’s Reply, Doc. 25, filed February 28, 2026; Third Amended Complaint, Doc. 26, filed
March 5, 2026; Errata, Doc. 27, filed March 14, 2026, Motion for Clerk’s Entry of Default,
Doc. 28, filed May 8, 2026. The Court orders Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not
unseal Documents 25-28 and make them accessible to the public.
The Court notifies Plaintiff that if she continues to file documents restricted to “Case
Participants” without showing a real and substantial interest that justifies depriving the public of
access to the document, the Court may impose sanctions including revocation of Plaintiff’s
electronic filing privilege, filing restrictions and dismissal of this case.
Order Denying Motion for Entry of Default Judgment
Case 1:25-cv-00422-SCY Document 29 Filed 05/13/26 Page 5 of 10

6
Plaintiff moves “for Entry of Default Judgment against the Defendants” and “requests the
clerk of court assess the case status and enter default against the Defendants.” Motion for
Request for Clerk’s Entry of Default Judgment, Doc. 28, filed May 8, 2026.
The Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for entry of default judgment as premature. The
Court may only enter default and default judgment after a defendant fails to plead or otherwise
defend. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. The Court has not notified Defendants of this lawsuit. The Court
previously notified Plaintiff:
Section 1915 provides that the “officers of the court shall issue and serve all
process, and perform all duties in [proceedings in forma pauperis]”). 28 U.S.C. §
1915(d). The Court will not order service at this time because the Court is
ordering Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not dismiss this case and to
file an amended complaint. The Court will address service after this Order to
Show Cause is resolved.
First Order to Show Cause at 6. The Court has not resolved the Order to Show Cause. The
Court will address service after the Court completes its review of Third Amended Complaint.
Order Regarding Diversity Jurisdiction
Plaintiff asserts the Court has federal question over this action because she is bringing it
pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5. See Third Amended Complaint
at 3, Doc. 26, filed March 5, 2026. It also appears Plaintiff is asserting the Court has diversity
jurisdiction over this action because she states “I, Noretta F. Boyd, am a citizen of and is a
resident of Indiana, and presently resides in Albuquerque, NM,” provides a New Mexico address
for each Defendant and seeks an award of damages “in an amount exceeding $75,000.” 	Third
Amended Complaint at 2, 49; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (“The district courts shall have
original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value
of $75,000, and is between [] citizens of different States”). Plaintiff, who apparently has resided
in New Mexico since September 2022, also states that she “was employed by both [Defendants]
Case 1:25-cv-00422-SCY Document 29 Filed 05/13/26 Page 6 of 10

7
Planet Fitness and Kelly Education in Indiana and New Mexico.” Third Amended Complaint
at 3 (stating “Plaintiff was an employee of the defendant, Planet Fitness – Eubank in
Albuquerque NM from September 2022 through May of 2023”).
As the party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, Plaintiff bears the burden of
alleging facts that support jurisdiction. See Dutcher v. Matheson, 733 F.3d 980, 985 (10th Cir.
2013) (“Since federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, we presume no jurisdiction exists
absent an adequate showing by the party invoking federal jurisdiction”); Evitt v. Durland, 243
F.3d 388 *2 (10th Cir. 2000) (“even if the parties do not raise the question themselves, it is our
duty to address the apparent lack of jurisdiction sua sponte”) (quoting Tuck v. United Servs. Auto.
Ass'n, 859 F.2d 842, 843 (10th Cir. 1988).
If Plaintiff is asserting the Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action, Plaintiff must
file a supplement to the Third Amended Complaint alleging facts regarding her citizenship and
the citizenship of all Defendants, including Planet Fitness and Kelly Education who employed
her in Indiana. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 558 (2007) (“a district court
must retain the power to insist upon some specificity in pleading before allowing a potentially
massive factual controversy to proceed”).
When assessing the citizenship of a person, we look to the individual's domicile.
Middleton v. Stephenson, 749 F.3d 1197, 1200 (10th Cir. 2014) (“For purposes of
diversity jurisdiction, a person is a citizen of a state if the person is domiciled in
that state.”). And “domicile is established by physical presence in a place in
connection with a certain state of mind concerning one's intent to remain there.”
Miss. Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 48, 109 S.Ct. 1597, 104
L.Ed.2d 29 (1989). Or, in other words, domicile consists of “reside[nce]” plus an
“inten[t] to remain there indefinitely.” Middleton, 749 F.3d at 1200.
ADA Carbon Solutions (Red River), LLC v. Atlas Carbon, LLC, 146 F.4th 1296, 1303 (10th Cir.
2025).
Case 1:25-cv-00422-SCY Document 29 Filed 05/13/26 Page 7 of 10

8
We have described the citizenship inquiry as “an all-things-considered approach”
in which “any number of factors might shed light on the subject in any given
case.” [Middleton v. Stephenson, 749 F.3d 1197, 1201 (10th Cir. 2014)]. Relevant
factors include
the party's current residence; voter registration and voting
practices; situs of personal and real property; location of brokerage
and bank accounts; membership in unions, fraternal organizations,
churches, clubs, and other associations; place of employment or
business; driver's license and automobile registration; payment of
taxes; as well as several other aspects of human life and activity.
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Although a person's “place of residence is
prima facie the domicile,” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Dyer, 19 F.3d 514,
520 (10th Cir. 1994), something more than residence in a state is required to show
the intent to remain in the state, see Whitelock v. Leatherman, 460 F.2d 507, 514
(10th Cir. 1972) (“[A]llegations of mere ‘residence’ may not be equated with
‘citizenship.’”).
Lax v. APP of New Mexico ED, PLLC, 2022 WL 2711230, *3-4 (10th Cir.). A corporation is
deemed to be a citizen of the state in which it is incorporated and in which it maintains its
principal place of business. See § 1332(c). A limited liability company (“LLC”), on the other
hand, is a citizen of each and every state in which any member is a citizen. See Siloam Springs
Hotel, LLC v. Century Sur. Co., 781 F.3d 1233, 1237-38 (10th Cir. 2015) (remanding to the
district court to determine the citizenship of all the members of the plaintiff limited liability
company); see also NMSA § 53-19-7 (an LLC is an association of persons). Plaintiff’s
supplement regarding her citizenship must include allegations regarding: (i) which state issued
Plaintiff’s driver’s license and automobile registration,; (ii) where Plaintiff is registered to vote;
(iii) where Plaintiff’s personal and real property is located; (iv) the location of the banks where
Plaintiff has accounts; (v) where Plaintiff pays state income taxes; and (vi) any other information
related to her citizenship/domicile.
Case 1:25-cv-00422-SCY Document 29 Filed 05/13/26 Page 8 of 10

9
If Plaintiff is not asserting the Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action, Plaintiff
must file a supplement to the Third Amended Complaint stating she is not asserting the Court has
diversity jurisdiction.
IT IS ORDERED that:
(i) 	The Clerk remove the restrictions on the following documents and make the
documents accessible to the public:
(a) 	Motion for Entry of Default, Doc. 16, July 30, 2025;
(b) 	First Motion to Expedite a Ruling on Pending Motions, Doc. 17, filed
August 26, 2025;
(c) 	First Motion for Order Entry of Right to Sue Ignite Fitness Holdings
Planet Fitness LLC, Doc. 18, filed October 3, 2025;
(d) 	Motion to Update and Amend Nomenclature, Doc. 19, filed October 3,
2025;
(e) 	Second Amended Complaint, Doc. 21, filed November 24, 2025; and
(f) 	Second Motion for Order Right to Sue, Doc. 22, filed December 2, 2025.
(ii) 	Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal, Doc. 25-2, filed February 28, 2026, is DENIED.
(iIi) 	Plaintiff shall, within 21 days of entry of this Order, show cause why the Court
should not remove the restrictions and make the following documents accessible
to the public:
(a) 	Plaintiff’s Reply, Doc. 25, filed February 28, 2026;
(b) 	Third Amended Complaint, Doc. 26, filed March 5, 2026; and
(c) 	Errata, Doc. 27, filed March 14, 2026.
Case 1:25-cv-00422-SCY Document 29 Filed 05/13/26 Page 9 of 10

10
(d) 	Second Motion for Clerk’s Entry of Default Judgment, Doc. 28, filed May
8, 2026.
Failure to timely show cause may result in the Court removing the restrictions and
making the documents accessible to the public.
(iii) 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Request for Clerk’s Entry of Default Judgment, Doc. 28,
filed May 8, 2026, is DENIED without prejudice.
(iv) 	Plaintiff shall, within 21 days of entry of this Order, file a supplement to the Third
Amended Complaint indicating whether she is asserting the Court has diversity
jurisdiction over this action.
_____________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00422-SCY Document 29 Filed 05/13/26 Page 10 of 10