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)

Download PDF
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

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?