Ronald Satish Emrit v. Spring Mountain Treatment Center

Filing 5

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE TRANSFERRED TO THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA by Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. By no later than July 5, 2018, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why the action should not be transferred to the United States District Court, District of Nevada, on grounds of improper or inconvenient venue. If Plaintiff does not file a timely response to this order, then the action may be transferred to the District of Nevada. (see order for details) (hr)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RONALD SATISH EMRIT,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14
15

SPRING MOUNTAIN TREATMENT
CENTER,
Defendant.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. CV 18-5114-CBM (AGRx)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
CASE SHOULD NOT BE
TRANSFERRED TO THE
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

18
19

On June 8, 2018, the pro se Plaintiff Ronald Satish Emrit filed a complaint,

20

explaining that he is a resident of Nevada (although his mailing address is in

21

Maryland) and invokes diversity jurisdiction to sue the sole defendant, a health-

22

care firm based in Las Vegas, for common-law torts and breach of contract. For

23

the following reasons, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing, by no

24

later than July 5, 2018, why the Court should not transfer the case to the District

25

of Nevada.

26
27
28

ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT
Plaintiff alleges that the sole defendant, Spring Mountain Treatment Center
(“SMTC”), a Las Vegas-based medical entity, breached a contract with him and

1

was negligent in caring for him in June of 2017. He also alleges that he met a

2

woman at SMTC who became his girlfriend, and, because her parents “were

3

racist” in an unspecified way, he vicariously blames SMTC for its “intentional

4

infliction of emotional distress.”

5
6

VENUE PROPERLY LIES IN THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA
“A civil action may be brought in (1) a judicial district in which any

7

defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district

8

is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or

9

omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is

10

the subject of the action is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an action

11

may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which

12

any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such

13

action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). When a case is filed in a district in which venue is

14

entirely misplaced, the district court “shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of

15

justice, transfer such case” to a district in which venue properly lies. 28 U.S.C.

16

§ 1406(a). When a case is filed in a district when venue is proper but a different

17

district is more convenient for the parties and witnesses, then, “in the interest of

18

justice, a district court may transfer [the] action to any other district or division

19

where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties

20

have consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

21

Venue does not lie in the Central District of California. Plaintiff alleges that

22

the sole defendant’s principal place of business is in Las Vegas, Nevada, not in

23

this district. All of the underlying alleged events and omissions occurred in Las

24

Vegas, not in this district. (Comp. ¶ 5.)

25

It appears appropriate to invoke 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) to transfer this case to

26

the District of Nevada. Venue plainly lies there, for that is the district in which the

27

only defendant resides and in which all of the underlying alleged acts or

28

omissions occurred. The interests of justice will be better served by transferring
2

1
2

the case there pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
District courts may raise sua sponte the issue of improper or inconvenient

3

venue, so long as they give the affected parties an opportunity to be heard before

4

ordering a transfer. Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1488 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming

5

§ 1406(a) transfer made after a show-cause order and opportunity to be heard).

6

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, by no later than July 5, 2018, Plaintiff

7

shall show cause in writing why the action should not be transferred to the United

8

States District Court, District of Nevada, on grounds of improper or inconvenient

9

venue. If Plaintiff does not file a timely response to this order, then the action

10

may be transferred to the District of Nevada.

11
12
13

DATED: June 13, 2018

ALICIA G. ROSENBERG
United States Magistrate Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3