Brown v. Johnson & Johnson

Filing 5

ORDER OF INTRADISTRICT TRANSFER from Sacramento (2:17-cv-01900-MCE-KJN) to Fresno (1:17-cv-1285 AWI EPG) signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/26/17. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRUCE BROWN,

12
13
14

No. 2:17-cv-01900-MCE-KJN

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

JOHNSON & JOHNSON,

15
16

Defendant.

17
18

On September 12, 2017, defendant Johnson and Johnson removed this case from

19

Sacramento Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

20

California. (ECF No. 1.) For the reasons discussed below, the court concludes that the case was

21

erroneously removed to the Sacramento division of the Eastern District of California, and

22

therefore transfers the action to the Fresno division.

23

The court’s Local Rules provide that “[a]ll civil and criminal actions and proceedings of

24

every nature and kind cognizable in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

25

California arising in Calaveras, Fresno, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced,

26

Stanislaus, Tulare, and Tuolomne counties shall be commenced in the United States District

27

Court sitting in Fresno, California….” E.D. Cal. L.R. 120(d). “Whenever in any action the Court

28

finds upon its own motion, motion of any party, or stipulation that the action has not been
1

1

commenced in the proper court in accordance with this Rule, or for other good cause, the Court

2

may transfer the action to another venue within the District.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 120(f).

3

In this case, pro se plaintiff Bruce Brown resides in Corcoran, California, which is located

4

in Kings County and falls in the Fresno division of this district. There is no indication in the

5

complaint that the actions alleged to have been committed by Johnson and Johnson somehow

6

occurred in the Sacramento division. Instead, it appears that the action arises from plaintiff’s use

7

of Johnson and Johnson’s products in Kings County in the Fresno division of this district.

8

Further, it appears that plaintiff, as a pro se litigant, merely inadvertently filed the case in

9

Sacramento Superior Court, causing the case to be assigned to the Sacramento division of the

10

Eastern District of California when defendant removed to federal court.

11

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

12

1. The action, is TRANSFERRED to the Fresno division of this district pursuant to Local

13

Rule 120(f).

14

2. Any dates before the undersigned are vacated.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated: September 26, 2017

17
18
19
14/ps.17-1900.order transferring to fresno

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2