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 19 Filed 12/09/19 Page 1 of 2

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,

12

Plaintiff,

Case No. 19-cv-05946-LB
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO
THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

v.

13
14

GREATER BALTIMORE MEDICAL
CENTER,

15

Re: ECF No. 1

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 All events took place in the District of

22

Maryland. The Center is located in Towson, Maryland.2
Venue thus is not in the Northern District of California and instead is in the District of

23
24

Maryland.

25
26
27
28

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 1.

ORDER – No. 19-cv-05946-LB 

Case 3:19-cv-05946-LB Document 19 Filed 12/09/19 Page 2 of 2

1

“A civil action may be brought in — (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
If venue is improper, the court may either dismiss the case without prejudice, or if it is in the

7
8

“interest of justice,” transfer the case “to any district or division in which it could have been

9

brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); In re Hall, Bayoutree Assocs., Ltd., 939 F.2d 802, 804 (9th Cir.
1991). Ordinarily, the interest of justice requires transferring the case to a proper venue rather than

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

dismissing the case. See Baeta v. Sonchik, 273 F.3d 1261, 1264–65 (9th Cir. 2001).
The court issued an order to cause to the plaintiff to give him an opportunity to show cause by

12
13

why the court should not transfer his case to the District of Maryland for lack of venue.3 The

14

plaintiff responded with reasons including bias, travel time, emotional distress, and convenience,

15

among others.5 These do not affect venue or the court’s lack of personal jurisdiction over the

16

Center.
Because venue is not in the Northern District, the court transfers the case to the District of

17
18

Maryland. The court attaches its earlier screening order, which distills the facts and cites the

19

relevant case law.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated: December 9, 2019
______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
3

27

Order – ECF No. 11 (order to respond by November 4); Order – ECF No. 16 (extending deadline to
December 3)

28

5

Screening Order Answer – ECF No. 18 at 2.

ORDER – No. 19-cv-05946-LB

2