Gonzales v. Global Equity Lending et al

Filing 4

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 5/25/2012 TRANSFERRING CASE to U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. (Michel, G)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MANUEL GONZALEZ 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 2:12-cv-1387 LKK CKD PS vs. GLOBAL EQUITY LENDING et al. Defendants. ORDER / Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action on May 23, 2012 and paid the filing 17 fee. Plaintiff is alleged to be the owner of real property in Antioch, California and primarily 18 seeks to cancel and invalidate alleged security interests in the property held by lenders and other 19 parties associated with the mortgage loan process. 20 The federal venue statute provides that a civil action “may be brought in (1) a 21 judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in 22 which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or 23 omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of 24 the action is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as 25 provided in this action, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s 26 personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 1 1 In this case, the complaint’s allegations fail to show that venue in the Eastern 2 District of California is proper. Plaintiff does not allege that any of the defendants reside in the 3 Eastern District of California – instead, plaintiff alleges that all defendants are “doing business in 4 the County of Contra Costa, State of California,” that the property at issue is located within the 5 County of Contra Costa, State of California, and that the “transaction and events which are the 6 subject matter of this Complaint all occurred within the County of Contra Costa, State of 7 California.” (Compl. ¶¶ 9-20, 24-25.) Plaintiff himself is further alleged to be a resident of the 8 County of Contra Costa. (Compl. ¶ 7.) Because Contra Costa County is located in the Northern 9 District of California, plaintiff’s action should have been filed in the United States District Court 10 for the Northern District of California. Indeed, it appears that that was plaintiff’s intention, 11 because the cover page of the complaint specifically contains the caption for the United States 12 District Court for the Northern District of California. Filing in this district was likely an 13 inadvertent error. 14 “The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong 15 division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any 16 district or division in which it could have been brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Here, given that 17 filing in this district appears to have been an inadvertent error and that dismissal would require 18 plaintiff to re-file the case and pay another filing fee, transfer is in the interest of justice. 19 20 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Dated: May 25, 2012 22 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 CKD/5 26 Gonzalez.1387.ven.wpd 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?