(PS) Hollywood v. Macomber et al
Filing
12
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim on 1/27/2025 TRANSFERRING this Action and Defendant Chen's pending motions: #6 Motion to File Electronically, #7 Motion for Remote Appearance, and #8 & #9 Motions to Dismiss to the USDC Central District of California. CASE CLOSED. (Deputy Clerk VLK)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
AROGANT HOLLYWOOD,
12
Case No. 2:24-cv-03351-DAD-CSK
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE
JEFFREY A. MACOMBER, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff Arogant Hollywood is proceeding in this action pro se and has paid the
17
18
filing fee. 1 For the reasons outlined below, the Court will transfer this action to the United
19
States District Court for the Central District of California because venue is not proper in
20
this district.
21
I.
VENUE
The general federal venue statute pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) provides that a
22
23
civil action “may be brought in (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all
24
defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district
25
This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c). An order addressing venue transfer does not address
the merits of the case and is a non-dispositive matter that falls within the scope of a
magistrate judge’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). See Ames v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., 2023 WL 7392026, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2023), reconsideration denied,
2023 WL 7434359 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2023).
1
26
27
28
1
1
in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or
2
a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) if there is
3
no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any
4
judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with
5
respect to such action.” If a court determines the appropriate venue for a case lies in
6
another division or district, the court “shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice,
7
transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.”
8
28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Even if venue is proper, a court may transfer an action to another
9
district under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the
10
interest of justice.” A court may raise and decide the issue of venue sua sponte. See
11
Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986).
12
II.
13
DISCUSSION
Several filings in this action confirm this action was improperly filed in the Eastern
14
District of California. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges various federal and state law
15
violations against Defendants for incidents that took place at “13732 Runnymede Street,
16
Van Nuys, CA 91405” and “541 Bruin Drive, Riverside, CA 92507” (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 27-28,
17
32, 213, 297-330. 381-367 (ECF No. 1)). Plaintiff also seeks to challenge his criminal
18
prosecution that occurred in Los Angeles County and includes in his Complaint various
19
Los Angeles County Superior Court filings of Plaintiff’s Los Angeles County criminal
20
case. (Compl. ¶¶ 55-284, 333-378.) Defendant Yingchun Chen’s pending motions to
21
dismiss (ECF Nos. 8, 9) further confirm this lawsuit stems, in part, from allegations of an
22
incident that took place in Riverside, California. See ECF Nos. 8 at 8-9; 9 at 8-9. Two
23
defendants the Court can decipher with any connection to the Eastern District of
24
California are Gavin Christopher Newsom and Robert Andres Bonta, however, the
25
allegations against these individuals are general and appear to allege they were involved
26
in and colluded with other Defendants in Plaintiff’s criminal prosecution in Los Angeles
27
County. See Compl. ¶¶ 158-159, 161. It is clear that relevant witnesses and information
28
related to this case are all located in the Los Angeles and Riverside area. Therefore,
2
1
because this case is based on events that occurred in Los Angeles and Riverside and
2
the responding Defendants are in these areas, Plaintiff’s case should have been filed in
3
the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In the interest of
4
justice, a court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district.
5
See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Accordingly, this matter is transferred to the United States
6
District Court for the Central District of California.
7
In transferring this action to the United States District Court for the Central District
8
of California, this Court is not expressing any opinion regarding the merits of Plaintiff’s
9
claims and the pending motions to dismiss. Parties are instructed to direct any further
10
filings or inquiries related to this case to the United States District Court for the Central
11
District of California. Further documents filed in the Eastern District of California related
12
to this case will be disregarded.
13
III.
CONCLUSION
14
For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
15
1.
This action, including Defendant Chen’s pending motion to file
16
electronically (ECF No. 6), motion for remote appearance (ECF No. 7),
17
motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 8, 9), is TRANSFERRED to the United
18
States District Court for the Central District of California pursuant to
19
28 U.S.C § 1406(a); and
20
2.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this action.
21
22
Dated: January 27, 2025
23
24
25
4, holly3351.24
26
27
28
3
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?