Highley v. City of Richmond Police Dept.

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 12/9/2008 GRANTING 8 MOTION to DISMISS to the extent that it requests to be transferred to the Northern District of California. CASE TRANSFERRED to the Northern District of California. Original file, certified copy of transfer order, and docket sheet sent. CASE CLOSED, Civil Case Terminated. (Matson, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 15 16 Defendants. 17 ----oo0oo---18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 All further references to "Rule" or "Rules" are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless otherwise noted. 1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ANGELA HIGHLEY (formerly known as ANGELA PRICE), No. 2:08-cv-01362-MCE-DAD ORDER CITY OF RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF RICHMOND; and Does 1 to 50, Through this action, Plaintiff, who worked as a probationary dispatcher with the Defendant City of Richmond Police Department ("Defendant"), seeks to collect alleged unpaid wages from her former employer. Defendant now moves to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3)1 for improper venue. Alternatively, Defendant requests that the Court transfer the case to the Northern District of California for the convenience of parties and witnesses pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In addition to challenging venue, Defendant also requests dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6). Where, as here, a complaint raises a federal question, venue is appropriate in the judicial district where a defendant resides, or where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. See 28 U.S. C. 1391(b). In opposition to Defendant's Motion, Plaintiff does not dispute that her lawsuit should have been filed in the Northern District. City of Richmond Police Department is located in Contra Costa County, which is in turn within the confines of the Northern District of California. 28 U.S.C. 84(a). Plaintiff expressly The concedes that transfer to the Northen District is accordingly appropriate. (Pl.'s Opp. 2:3-4). Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED2 to the extent that it requests that the instant lawsuit be transferred to the Northern District of California for further adjudication. The Clerk is therefore directed to transfer the file to the Northern District and close the case here. The Court declines to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint in its entirety under Rule 12(b)(3). /// /// /// /// /// Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, the Court ordered this matter submitted on the briefing. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 78-230(h). 2 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Court also declines to rule on Defendant's substantive challenges to the Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), since those matters are best addressed by the Northern District following transfer. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 9, 2008 _____________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?