Paiz v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 9

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 7/14/09. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/14/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PETER PAIZ, Plaintiff, v. CHASE, et al., Defendants. / ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE No. C 09-02576 JSW IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Upon reviewing the Amended Complaint in this matter, it appears as though Venue is not proper in the Northern District of California. Instead, venue appears to be proper in the Eastern District of California. A civil action in which jurisdiction is premised on federal question may be brought only in a judicial district (1) where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). If venue is improper, a district court has discretion to either dismiss the action, or in the interest of justice, transfer the action to a district in which it could have been brought. 28 U.S.C. 1406(a). According the Amended Complaint, only one of the named defendants resides in California, and none of the named defendants appear to reside in the Northern District. Therefore, venue would not be proper in the Northern District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(1) or (b)(3). Moreover, the property that is the subject of this action is situated in the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Eastern District, not the Northern District. Accordingly, venue would not be proper in the Northern District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2). Thus, the Court HEREBY ORDERS Plaintiff Peter Paiz to Show Cause in writing by no later than July 22, 2009 why this action should not be transferred to the Eastern District of California, the district in which the property that is the subject of this action is situated. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 14, 2009 JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PETER PAIZ, Plaintiff, v. CHASE et al, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case Number: CV09-02576 JSW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Defendant. / United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on July 14, 2009, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. Peter Paiz 1830 Avenida Martina Roseville, CA 95747 Dated: July 14, 2009 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

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?