United States of America v. Bustamante

Filing 14

ORDER, CASE TRANSFERRRED to Sacramento Division, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 10/6/17. New Case Number 2:17-mc-00150-GEB. Old Case Number 1:17-mc-0047-AWI-EPG. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 10 CASE NO. 1:17-mc-0047 AWI EPG Plaintiff ORDER FOR INTRADISTRICT TRANSFER TO SACRAMENTO DIVISION 11 v. 12 BENJAMIN BUSTAMANTE, 13 14 15 16 17 Defendant and Judgment Debtor _____________________________________ THE SF LGBT CENTER, Garnishee 18 19 This matter is an application for a writ of garnishment. 20 On April 30, 2010, Defendant Benjamin Bustamante pled guilty pursuant to a plea 21 agreement to wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343). As part of that sentence, Bustamante was ordered to 22 pay nearly $700,000 in restitution. This sentence and restitution were ordered as part of a criminal 23 case that was prosecuted in the Eastern District of California – Sacramento Division. See United 24 States v. Bustamante, 2:09-CR-504 GEB (E.D. Cal. Sacramento Div.). 25 On July 5, 2017, the United State filed this application for a writ of garnishment that 26 sought to garnish a portion of Bustamante wages from his current employer, The SF LGBT 27 Center. The application was filed with the Eastern District of California – Fresno Division. 28 According to the application, Bustamante and The SF LGBT Center are located in San Francisco. 1 On August 10, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation to grant 2 the writ of garnishment. The time for filing objections has passed and no objections were filed by 3 any interested party. 4 Upon review, the Court finds that the application was not properly filed in the Fresno 5 Division. The Fresno Division has absolutely no connection to the criminal conviction, the 6 garnishment order, Bustamante’s current location, or The SF LGBT Center. Because the 7 garnishment order was entered as part of the criminal proceedings in the Sacramento Division, the 8 United States should have filed the writ application with the Sacramento Division. The Fresno 9 Division is not the proper venue. 10 Instead of addressing the Findings and Recommendation or the writ application any 11 further, the Court will transfer this matter to the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of 12 California. See Local Rule 120(f) (“Whenever in any action the Court finds upon its own motion . 13 . . that the action has not been commenced in the proper court in accordance with this Rule, or for 14 other good cause, the Court may transfer the action to another venue within the District.”). 15 16 ORDER 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 18 1. 19 20 21 Pursuant to Local Rule 120, this matter is TRANSFERRED forthwith to the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California; and 2. The Court expresses no opinions with respect to the Findings and Recommendation, which remains pending. 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 6, 2017 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?