Loskot v. MJK Properties, Inc.

Filing 8

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 03/07/2013. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/7/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
MARSHALL LOSKOT,

12
13

Plaintiff(s),
v.

14

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA

MJK PROPERTIES INC,

15

No. C-13-00594 DMR

Defendant(s).
___________________________________/

16
17

According to Plaintiff’s complaint, the incident that forms the basis of his complaint took

18

place in Vallejo, California, in Solano County, and Plaintiff lives in Platina, California, in Shasta

19

County. Based on Plaintiff’s allegations, it appears that the proper venue for this case is the Eastern

20

District of California because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise

21

to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).1

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

In his Complaint, Plaintiff states that he is filing under 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. and alleges
that this Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1391, a case in which jurisdiction is not based solely on diversity of citizenship may be filed only in:
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are
residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in
which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim
occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is
situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be
brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant
is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.

1

When a plaintiff files his or her case in the wrong district, the court must either dismiss the

2

case or transfer it to the District Court in the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). On February

3

28, 2013, the court issued an Order to Show Cause why the case should not be transferred to the

4

Eastern District of California and ordered Plaintiff to show legal authority for venue in this district

5

by no later than March 12, 2013. On March 4, 2013, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a statement explaining

6

that he had mistakenly filed this action in the Northern District, and that he meant to file the action

7

in the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. [Docket No. 6.] Accordingly, this court

8

orders that this action be TRANSFERRED to the Eastern District of California.2

9

S
13

DERED

O OR
IT IS S

DONNA M. RYU
.R u
United States Magistrate Judge y
onna M

15

Judge D

ER

17

A

H

16

LI

14

R NIA

Dated: March 7, 2013

FO

UNIT
ED

12

RT

For the Northern District of California

11

NO

United States District Court

IT IS SO ORDERED.

RT
U
O

10

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
2

On March 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed a consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. To the extent that this order may be dispositive, the court does not require
the consent of Defendants because Defendants have not been served and therefore are not parties under
the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). See Ornelas v. De Frantz, No. 00-1067 JCS, 2000 WL 973684, at
*2 n.2 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2000) (citing Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir. 1995) (magistrate
judge had jurisdiction to dismiss prisoner's civil rights action without consent of defendants because
defendants had not been served yet and therefore were not parties)).

2