Maiola v. Greater Baltimore Medical Center

Filing 10

ORDER. In the attached screening order, the court transfers the case to the District of Maryland because venue is improper here and the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The court attaches its previous screening and transfer order in the plaintiff's previous lawsuit, Maiola v. Greater Baltimore Medical Center, No. 3:19-cv-05946-LB (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2019). Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 9/11/2020. (Attachments: #1 Maiola I Screening Order, #2 Maiola I Transfer Order)(lblc5S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2020)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Case 3:19-cv-05946-LB Document 11 Filed 10/21/19 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

JOSEPH N. MAIOLA

Case No. 19-cv-05946-LB

Plaintiff,

12

ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT
UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915

v.

13
14

GREATER BALTIMORE MEDICAL
CENTER,

15

Re: ECF Nos. 1, 6, 9

Defendant.
16
17

INTRODUCTION

18

Plaintiff Joseph Maiola, who lives in Yuma, Arizona and is representing himself, sued the

19

Greater Baltimore Medical Center, which is located in Maryland, claiming that in 1978, there was

20

a “premeditated switch of a newborn baby at GBMC with another newborn,” causing him (the

21

baby’s father) and his family severe emotional distress.1 He wants a blood draw to check DNA

22

(presumably from the child and through the U.S. Marshal) because saliva DNA is inadequate and

23

a “gag order.”2 The court granted Mr. Maiola’s application to proceed in forma pauperis,

24
25
26
27

1

Compl. – ECF No. 1 at 7. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint
citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents. GBMC is the acronym that
Mr. Maiola uses for the Center. Id. at 6.

2

Id. at 8.

28
ORDER – No. 19-cv-05946-LB 

Case 3:19-cv-05946-LB Document 11 Filed 10/21/19 Page 2 of 4

1

reserving the issue of service for this order.3 Before authorizing the U.S. Marshal to serve the

2

complaint, the court must screen it for minimum legal viability. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The

3

court can decide the matter without oral argument. N.D. Cal. Civ. L. R. 7-1(b). Because venue

4

does not lie in the Northern District of California, and because the court lacks personal jurisdiction

5

over the Center, the court orders Mr. Maiola to show cause in writing by November 4, 2019 why

6

the court should not transfer his case to the District of Maryland.

7
STATEMENT

9

On June 5, 1978, Mr. Maiola’s wife gave birth to their third child at the Center, which is in

10

Towson, Maryland.4 Mr. Maiola alleges that the Center is a “Baltimore County facility.”5 Without

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

naming those responsible, he alleges that there was a “premeditated switch of a newborn baby at

12

GBMC with another newborn” and that the switch was “intentional, criminal, and previously

13

planned.”6 He alleges that the other mother and father (now deceased) and other participants “are

14

known” and that the motive for the switch was “student loans [and] bankruptcy (no loading up and

15

discharge, March 1978).7 The “ongoing conspiracy involves . . . hiding, silence, and deception” or

16

“HSD.”8 The “HSD is thirty-six years of Emotional Distress. HSD is shown by CHSD [meaning,

17

“Chronologic HSD”]. GBMC[’s] prima facie culpability rises to [the] level of [] gross negligence,

18

and criminal collusion is internal and external to GBMC.”9 The conduct “show[s] cruelty by

19

unusually punishing over and over, . . . violating a family’s constitutional dignity, multiply;

20

designated VII.”10 “[National Security Protection Probability requires Supreme Court (via the

21
22

3

Order – ECF No. 5. Mr. Maiola consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction. Consent – ECF No. 8.

23

4

Compl. – ECF No. 1 at 1, 6.

5

Id. at 6.

6

Id. at 7.

25

7

Id.

26

8

Id. at 5.

9

Id. at 7 (emphasis in original); see id. at 2 (defining CHSD).

24

27

10

Id. at 5.

28
ORDER – No. 19-cv-05946-LB

2 

Case 3:19-cv-05946-LB Document 11 Filed 10/21/19 Page 3 of 4

1

9CCA)] [‘Can maintain action for emotional distress,’ . . . Larsen. 81 P.3d 196.] Cause of Action

2

[Requires], Jury Possibly.”11
The full citation to Larsen is Larsen v. Banner Health Sys., 81 P. 3d 196 (Wyoming 2003).

3
4

Larsen was a negligence lawsuit stemming from the separation of a mother and daughter for 43

5

years based on the hospital’s switching two newborn babies at birth in 1958. Id. at 198. After

6

DNA tests revealed that one baby was not the daughter of her purported father and mother, the girl

7

searched for her biological parents and found her biological mother. Id. They then sued the

8

hospital in federal court. Id.; see Larsen v. Banner Health Systems, Case No. 2-cv-01029-WFD,

9

Compl. – ECF No. 1, at 2 (D. Wyo. June 5, 2002) (the basis for jurisdiction was diversity
jurisdiction). The district court in the District of Wyoming certified to the Wyoming Supreme

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Court the issue of whether the mother and daughter could maintain a negligence action where the

12

only damages were great emotional pain, humiliation, anxiety, grief, and expenses for

13

psychological counseling. Larsen, 81 P.3d at 198–99. The Wyoming Supreme Court answered

14

that under Wyoming law, the plaintiffs could maintain a negligence action. Id. at 207.
Mr. Maiola asks for “Marshall Service for Blood DNA” and a “gag order.”12 In a supplemental

15
16

filing, he says that he “want[s] to locate and identify my thirdborn, Joseph N. Maiola.”13

17
ANALYSIS

18

There apparently is not venue in this district because the defendant resides in Maryland, and

19
20

the acts took place there. The court thus orders Mr. Maiola to show cause in writing by November

21

4, 2019 why his case should not be transferred to the District of Maryland.
“A civil action may be brought in — (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all

22
23

defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which

24
25
11

Id. at 8 (brackets in original).

26

12

Id.

27

13

28

Mot. – ECF No. 9 at 1. Mr. Maiola filed two motions, one about the possibility of any defense of
mootness, and another to preclude other motions by the defendant. Motions – ECF Nos. 6, 9. These are
procedurally premature, and the court denies them without prejudice.

ORDER – No. 19-cv-05946-LB

3 

Case 3:19-cv-05946-LB Document 11 Filed 10/21/19 Page 4 of 4

1

a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part

2

of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an

3

action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any

4

defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. §

5

1391(b).

6

If venue is improper, the court may either dismiss the case without prejudice, or, if it is in the
“interest of justice,” transfer the case “to any district or division in which it could have been

8

brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); In re Hall, Bayoutree Assocs., Ltd., 939 F.2d 802, 804 (9th Cir.

9

1991). Ordinarily, the interest of justice requires transferring the case to a proper venue rather than

10

dismissing the case. See Baeta v. Sonchik, 273 F.3d 1261, 1264–65 (9th Cir. 2001). An action may

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

be transferred to another court if: (1) that court is one where the action might have been brought;

12

(2) the transfer serves the convenience of the parties; and (3) the transfer will promote the interests

13

of justice. Kinney v. Gutierrez, No. 3:16-cv-02278-LB, 2016 WL 4268679, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug.

14

15, 2016 (citing E & J Gallo Winery v. F. & P. S.p.A., 899 F. Supp. 465, 466 (E.D. Cal. 1994)).

15

Because the Center does not reside here and the alleged switch did not occur here (and instead

16

occurred in the District of Maryland), venue is not proper in the Northern District and instead lies

17

in the District of Maryland.

18
19
20

A related issue is that the court has no personal jurisdiction over the Center. See Pebble Beach
Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1154-55 (9th Cir. 2005).
By November 4, 2019, Mr. Maiola must (1) show cause in writing (in no more than five

21

pages) why the court should not transfer his case to the District of Maryland, (2) file a statement of

22

non-opposition; or (3) dismiss the case without prejudice by filing a one-page notice of voluntary

23

dismissal. If Mr. Maiola does not file anything by November 4, 2019, the court will transfer the

24

case to the District of Maryland.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

Dated: October 21, 2019
______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

27
28
ORDER – No. 19-cv-05946-LB

4