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)

Download PDF
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

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?