Jackson v. Clear Recon Corp. et al

Filing 2

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 5/4/2015, CASE TRANSFERRRED to Sacramento Division. New Case Number 2:15-cv-00968-TLN-AC. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

STEPHEN JACKSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17

v.

Defendants.

19

21

ORDER TRANSFERRING ACTION
TO SACRAMENTO DIVISION

CLEAR RECON CORP.: BANK OF
AMERICA, N.A. SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO BAC LOANS SERVICING,
LP FKA COUNTRYWIDE HOME
LOANS SERVICING LP; STEWART
TITLE; and DOES 1-10,

18

20

No. 1:15-cv-662 --- BAM

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and filed the instant action in the Fresno Division of the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. A review of the complaint
reveals that Plaintiff resides in Fairfield, California, and the property at issue in the complaint is

22
23
24
25

also located in Fairfield, California. Fairfield California is located in Solano County which lies
within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Sacramento Division of this Court. See Local Rule
120(d).

26

Title 28 of the United States Code Section 1391(b) provides :

27

A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship may,
except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in (1) a judicial district where any

28

1

1
2
3

defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which
a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a
substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial
district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action
may otherwise be brought.

4
Pursuant to Local Rule 120(f), a Court may transfer an action to another venue within the
5
6

district when the action has not been commenced in the proper court. The court is transferring

7

this action to the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California because as previously

8

noted, Plaintiff resides there and because the property at issue in the complaint is located in

9

Solano County. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). Moreover, it appears that the actions giving rise to

10
11

Plaintiff’s complaint all arose in Solano County. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Good cause
appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this entire matter is TRANSFERRED to the

12
13

Sacramento Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

May 4, 2015

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2