Eiler v. United States Postal Agency et al

Filing 14

ORDER Denying Motions for Electronic Filing and Service 10 , 12 ; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Response due by 12/4/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 11/18/2015. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2015)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
ERIN J. EILER,

8

Case No. 15-cv-04932-DMR

Plaintiff,
9
v.
10
UNITED STATES POSTAL AGENCY, et
al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Defendants.

12

ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR
ELECTRONIC FILING AND SERVICE
AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
CASE SHOULD NOT BE
TRANSFERRED

13
Plaintiff Erin J. Eiler filed this action on October 27, 2015. On November 9, 2015,
14

Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Address Change,” in which she cites an Illinois Supreme Court rule in

15
support of her request to be served at her email address. [Docket No. 10.] She also filed a
16

“Motion for Electronic Filing,” in which she requests permission to electronically file documents

17
in this case. [Docket No. 12.] Both motions are denied, since Plaintiff failed to provide any
18
information about whether she meets the technical requirements for e-filing and Illinois court rules
19

are not applicable in this Court.1

20
21
22
23

Additionally, according to Plaintiff’s complaint, the primary incidents that form the basis
of her complaint took place in South Dakota, and Plaintiff lives in Illinois. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391, a case in which jurisdiction is not based solely on diversity of citizenship2 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

24
25
26
1

27
2

28

See http://cand.uscourts.gov/ECF/proseregistration.

In her complaint, Plaintiff states that she is filing under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 and alleges that this
court has federal question jurisdiction over this case.

1
2
3

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.
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Based on the allegations in the complaint, it appears that the proper venue

4
5

for this case is the District of South Dakota because that is where “a substantial part of the events
or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). When a plaintiff files his

6
or her case in the wrong district, the court must either dismiss the case or transfer it to the District
7
Court in the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Thus, unless Plaintiff can show legal
8
authority for venue in this district, the court will transfer the case to the District of South Dakota.
9
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, by no later than December 4, 2015, Plaintiff
10
shall file a statement explaining why this case should not be transferred to the United States
11
of this matter for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
Dated: November 18, 2015

Judge

ER

H

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

FO

RT

18

LI

17

______________________________________
Donna M. Ryu
yu
M. Judge
United States Magistrate R
Donna

A

16

DERED

O OR
IT IS S

R NIA

UNIT
ED

14

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

S

13

NO

United States District Court
Northern District of California

District Court for South Dakota. Failure to respond by December 4, 2015 may result in dismissal
12

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C