Friends of Roeding Park, et al v. City of Fresno, et al

Filing 34

ORDER OF INTRADISTRICT TRANSFER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 12/15/11 ORDERING that the 15 17 and 20 Motions to Dismiss are DISMISSED AS MOOT; the 22 Motion to Change Venue is GRANTED; this case is TRANSFERRED to Fresno Division. New Case Number 1:11-cv-02070 LJO SKO. (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FRIENDS OF ROEDING PARK, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14

No. 2:11-cv-02083-MCE-CKD

v.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CITY OF FRESNO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

----oo0oo----

17
18

Before the Court are (1) December 9, 2011, Defendant City of

19

Fresno’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, ECF No. 15;

20

(2) December 9, 2011 Defendant County of Fresno’s Motion to

21

Dismiss, ECF No. 17; (3) Defendant California Department of Parks

22

and Recreation’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 20; and (4)Defendant

23

Fresno’s Chaffee Zoo Corp.’s Motion to Change Venue, ECF No. 22.1

24

///

25

///

26
27
28

1

Because oral argument will not be of material assistance,
the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.
Local Rule 78-230(h).
1

1

The Motions are fully briefed.

Because the Court finds that

2

venue is improper, this action will be transferred to Fresno.

3

All other motions, requests, or stipulations, are therefore moot.

4

Friends of Roeding Park is an unincorporated association

5

located in Fresno, California.

Each of the individual plaintiffs

6

reside in Fresno.

7

Fresno County Zoo is located within Roeding Park.

8

allegations in the “Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and

9

Complaint for Violation of Federal Statutes and Pendent State

Roeding Park is located in Fresno and the
Plaintiffs’

10

Claims” (the “Amended Complaint”), ECF No. 13, concern the Fresno

11

County Zoo’s expansion in Roeding Park and the environmental

12

impact of that expansion.

13

States Department of the Interior and California’s Department of

14

Parks and Recreation, all of the other defendants in Plaintiffs’

15

First Amended Complaint are Fresno entities.2

16

With the exception of the United

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of

17

California has divisional offices for the filing of civil actions

18

in Sacramento and Fresno.

19

provides that actions that arise in certain specified counties

20

“shall” be filed in the Fresno Office and actions arising in

21

other specified counties “shall” be filed in the Sacramento

22

Office.3

23

///

Local Rule (“L.R.”) 120(d) generally

24
25
26
27
28

2
These defendants are the: (1) City Of Fresno; (2) Fresno
County Zoo Authority; (3) County of Fresno; (4) Fresno’s Chaffee
Zoo Corporation; (5) Roeding Park Playland; and (6) Fresno
Storyland.
3

Filing in Fresno is required for actions arising in
Calaveras, Fresno, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced,
Stanislaus, Tulare and Tuolumne counties. See L.R. 120(d).
2

1

Specifically, L.R. 120(d) provides, in relevant part, that

2

“proceedings of every nature and kind cognizable in the United

3

States District Court for the Eastern District of California

4

arising in” Fresno shall be commenced in the Fresno District

5

Court.

6

Further, L.R. 120(f) states that:

Whenever in any action the Court finds upon its own
motion, motion of any party, or stipulation that the
action has not been commenced in the proper court in
accordance with this Rule, or for other good cause, the
Court may transfer the action to another venue within
the District.

7
8
9

There is no dispute that this action “arises” in Fresno.
10
See First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 13 at 1; Plaintiffs/
11
Petitioners’ Response to Order to Show Cause re Dismissal,
12
ECF No. 28 at 2-3, 5-6.4

Rather, in response to the motion to

13
transfer venue, Plaintiffs request that the Court bifurcate this
14
action by transferring venue to Fresno for certain claims, while
15
retaining jurisdiction over the claims relating to Secretary of
16
the Interior and the National Environmental Policy Act.
17
ECF No. 28 at 2-3, 5-6.
18
Plaintiffs do not, however, provide any reason why venue in
19
this Court would be proper under Local Rule 120 for those claims,
20
which also arise from the Zoo’s expansion and the environmental
21
impact of that expansion.
22
///
23
///
24
25
26
27
28

4
In their First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs do not allege
that venue is proper in Sacramento because the action “arises” in
Sacramento. Rather, Plaintiffs contend that venue is proper
because both the U.S. Department of the Interior and California’s
Department of Parks and Recreation have offices in Sacramento and
actions against state agencies may be brought in the County of
Sacramento. See ECF No. 13 at 1.

3

1

Furthermore, Plaintiffs have made no showing that the U.S.

2

Department of the Interior and California’s Department of Parks

3

and Recreation could not appear in Fresno, nor have they shown

4

that bifurcating their claims would promote the goals of judicial

5

economy, convenience, and fairness to litigants.

6

Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(d) (“For convenience, to avoid prejudice, or

7

to expedite and economize, the court may order a separate trial

8

of one or more separate issues, claims, crossclaims,

9

counterclaims, or third-party claims.”).

10

See

In sum, Plaintiffs are located in Fresno, the real property

11

(i.e., Roeding Park and the Fresno Zoo) at issue is located in

12

Fresno, the allegations regarding the expansion and the

13

environmental impact all relate to Roeding Park and the Fresno

14

Zoo, and all but two of the defendants are located in Fresno.

15

The Court concludes that this action “arises” in Fresno and

16

should have been filed in Fresno.

17

therefore appropriate and the Court finds good cause to transfer

18

this case to Fresno pursuant to Local Rule 120(f).

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
4

Transfer to Fresno is

1

The Court therefore GRANTS defendant Fresno’s Chaffee Zoo

2

Corp.’s Motion to Change Venue, ECF No. 22, and DISMISSES AS MOOT

3

(1) Defendant City of Fresno’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of

4

Jurisdiction, ECF No. 15; (2) Defendant County of Fresno’s Motion

5

to Dismiss, ECF No. 17; (3) Defendant California Department of

6

Parks and Recreation’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 20, and any

7

other motions, requests, or stipulations that may be pending.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 15, 2011

10
11
12

_____________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5