Greaves v. U.S.A. Cricket et al

Filing 41

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS re: 23 , Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 1/18/2023. (wft, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/18/2023)

Case 4:22-cv-02601-KAW Document 41 Filed 01/18/23 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

KIRK GREAVES,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 4:22-cv-02601-KAW
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
TEXAS

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 23

U.S.A. CRICKET, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

On October 24, 2022, Defendants U.S.A. Cricket and Richard Done filed a motion to

14

dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2),(3),(5), and

15

(6). In so moving, Defendants contend that venue is not proper in the U.S. District Court for the

16

Northern District of California. The undersigned agrees.

17

Upon review of the moving papers, the Court finds this matter suitable for resolution

18

without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), and, for the reasons set forth below, in

19

lieu of resolving the motion to dismiss, TRANSFERS this case to the U.S. District Court for the

20

Southern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

21

I.

BACKGROUND

22

Plaintiff Kirk Greaves is of African descent, and resides in Houston, Texas. (Compl., Dkt.

23

No. 1 ¶ 1.) Defendant U.S.A. Cricket (“USAC”) is a non-profit organization formed in 2017 and

24

incorporated in Colorado. (Am. Decl. of Richard Done, “Done Decl.,” Dkt. No. 25 ¶¶ 3-4.) USAC

25

has four employees, none of whom reside in California. (Done Decl. ¶ 5.) Defendant Richard

26

Done, the Cricket Operations Director, is one such employee, and he has resided in Texas at all

27

relevant times. (Done Decl. ¶¶ 2, 5.)

28

In February 2021, USAC contracted with Plaintiff to plan and deliver four national cricket

Case 4:22-cv-02601-KAW Document 41 Filed 01/18/23 Page 2 of 3

1

events during a four-month period. (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 7.) After accepting the offer, Plaintiff was

2

relocated to Houston, Texas on March 1, 2021. (Compl. ¶ 6.) During the period of engagement,

3

Plaintiff traveled to a staff retreat in Milpitas, California, but no other events are alleged to have

4

occurred in the Northern District of California. (Compl. ¶ 10.) On March 28, 2022, USAC sent

5

Plaintiff a letter terminating his contract as of April 8, 2022. (Compl. ¶ 12, Ex. B.)

6

On April 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging claims for breach of contract, and

7

that Defendants terminated the contract for both discriminatory and retaliatory reasons, and that

8

they conspired to commit fraud against him. (Compl. ¶¶ 13-40.)
On October 24, 2022, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. (Defs.’ Mot., Dkt. No. 23.)

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9
10

On October 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, an

11

administrative motion to enlarge time to respond to the motion to dismiss. (Pl.’s Opp’n, Dkt. No.

12

28.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s request for an extension to file an amended opposition, and

13

gave Plaintiff until November 28, 2022 to do so. (Dkt. No. 34.) Plaintiff, however, did not file a

14

subsequent opposition. On December 6, 2022, Defendants filed a reply. (Defs.’ Reply, Dkt. No.

15

40.)

16
17

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

A district court must dismiss or transfer a case if venue is improper. Fed. R. Civ. P.

18

12(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). If the venue’s propriety is challenged under Rule 12(b)(3), the

19

plaintiff bears the burden of showing that venue is proper. See Piedmont Label Co. v. Sun Garden

20

Packing Co., 598 F.2d 491, 496 (9th Cir. 1979). Venue is only proper in:
(1)
a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents
of the State in which the district is located;

21
22

(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 the 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.

23
24
25
26

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). “The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the

27

wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to

28

any district or division in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
2

Case 4:22-cv-02601-KAW Document 41 Filed 01/18/23 Page 3 of 3

III.

1

Defendants argue that venue is improper, which warrants dismissal under Rule 12(b)(3).

2
3

(Defs.’ Mot. at 11.) Plaintiff’s opposition did not address whether venue was proper, so any

4

arguments he may have regarding the appropriateness of his chosen venue are deemed waived.

5

(See Pl.’s Opp’n at 1-2.) The Court notes that Plaintiff’s address of record is in Houston, Texas,

6

which is located in the Southern District of Texas.
Based on the allegations in the complaint, the Court finds that venue is improper. Indeed,

7

United States District Court
Northern District of California

DISCUSSION

8

none of the defendants reside here,1 no substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the

9

claim occurred here, and Plaintiff does not allege that there is no district in which this action may

10

have otherwise been brought. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). As to the third option, as Defendants

11

argue, this case “could have been brought in Colorado, where Defendant is incorporated, or the

12

Northern or Southern District of Texas, where Plaintiff and Done resided during the relevant

13

period (and currently), and where nearly all of the alleged injuries occurred.” (Defs.’ Mot. at 11.)

14

Accordingly, in the interest of justice and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), the Court

15

declines to dismiss the case based on improper venue, and orders the case TRANSFERRED to the

16

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Upon transfer, the district court may

17

resolve the pending motion to dismiss or order further briefing if deemed appropriate.

18

IV.

For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned finds that venue is improper, and, instead,

19
20

TRANSFERS the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

CONCLUSION

Dated: January 18, 2023
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Even if USAC was found to reside in this district, Defendant Done does not reside in California,
which renders venue in the Northern District of California improper. (See Done Decl. ¶ 5.)
3