Johnson v. Roque et al

Filing 21

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 10/8/2013 ORDERING CASE TRANSFERRRED to Fresno Division. New Case Number 1:13-cv-1628 AWI SMS. Old Case Number 2:13-cv-1531 MCE AC. All motion hearings dates before Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. are VACATED and subject to renoticing before the judge to whom the case is reassigned.(Waggoner, D)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SCOTT JOHNSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

No. 2:13-cv-01531-MCE-AC

v.
CARLOS ROQUE; MAGDALENDA
FERNANDEZ; TRIPLE S GOLDEN
STATE CORPORATION, a California
Corporation; and DOES 1-10,

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO
FRESNO DIVISION

Defendants.

17
18
19
20
21
22

The Complaint in this matter is brought on behalf of Plaintiff Scott Johnson, a
physically disabled person who requires use of a wheelchair and specially equipped van
for mobility purposes. Plaintiff alleges that a restaurant owned and operated by

23
24
25

Defendants in Westley, California violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 12101, et. seq., (“ADA”) by failing to comply with the Accessibility Guidelines

26

applicable to the ADA. Plaintiff also alleges several violations of state law.

27

///

28
1

1

According to Plaintiff’s complaint, venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because

2

the restaurant which is the subject of the instant action is located in the Eastern District,

3
4
5
6
7

and because Plaintiff’s cause of action also arose in this District. The Civil Cover Sheet
appended to Plaintiff’s complaint further indicates that Defendants are residents of
Stanislaus County, California.
In addition to Defendants being residents of Stanislaus County, the City of

8

Westley is also located within Stanislaus County. Stanislaus County is part of the

9

Fresno Division of the United States Court for the Eastern District of California. See E.D.

10
11

Local Rule 120(d).
Pursuant to Local Rule 120(f), any civil action which has not been commenced in

12
13
14

the proper court within this District, may, on the court’s own motion, be transferred to the
proper court. The instant case should have been instituted in Fresno rather than

15

Sacramento. Therefore this action will be transferred to the Fresno division of the court.

16

All motions currently pending are therefore vacated, subject to being renoticed before

17

the judge to whom the case is reassigned in Fresno. The pending requests for

18
19
20
21

telephonic appearances are denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 8, 2013

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2