Ajuluchuku v. Chase Bank

Filing 4

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 10/9/2012 TRANSFERRING CASE to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. CASE CLOSED. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

AMANDA U. AJULUCHUKU,

11

Plaintiff,

12

vs.

13

No. 12-cv-2173-MCE-CKD PS

CHASE BANK,

14

Defendant.

15

ORDER
/

16

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and has filed a request to proceed in

17

forma pauperis.. This proceeding was referred to the undersigned by E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21),

18

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

19

The federal venue statute requires that all civil actions filed in any district court be

20

brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the

21

same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise

22

to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated,

23

or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the

24

action is commenced, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.” 28

25

U.S.C. § 1391(a).

26

\\\\\
1

1

Plaintiff’s pleading makes clear that the Eastern District of California is not the

2

proper venue in which to bring this case. Both plaintiff and defendant reside in Los Angeles,

3

California and the alleged acts giving rise to the claim all occurred there. Plaintiff’s contention

4

that defendant’s “corporate office” is located in New York does nothing to confer proper venue

5

in this district. Dkt. 3; see Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986) (where all

6

defendants resided in Alaska and “virtually all of the activity providing the basis of the complaint

7

took place” there, district court properly concluded that it lacked venue). “The district court of a

8

district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it

9

be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have

10

been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). This matter should have been brought in the Central

11

District of California, where all the parties reside and the allegations supporting the cause of

12

action occurred, and not the Eastern District of California.

13
14
15

Accordingly, in the interest of justice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case
be transferred to the District Court for the Central District of California.
Dated: October 9, 2012

16

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

CKD9

24
25
26
2