Robinson v. Bank of America et al

Filing 29

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR INTRADISTRICT TRANSFER re 20 . Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on May 29, 2012. (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/29/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

KURT K ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, individually and doing
business as BANK OF AMERICA HOME
LOAN SERVICING; RECONTRUST,
COUNTRYWIDE BANK,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 12-CV-00494-RMW
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
INTRADISTRICT TRANSFER
[Re Docket No. 20]

17
Plaintiff Kurt Robinson (“plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed the instant action alleging
18
claims related to the foreclosure of residential property in Fremont, California in Alameda County
19
Superior Court on November 29, 2011. See Dkt. No. 1. Defendants Bank of America (“BA”),
20
Countrywide Bank (“Countrywide”), and ReconTrust Company, N.A removed the matter to this
21
court on February 1, 2012. See id. The Notice of Removal indicated that the action should be
22
assigned to the San Jose Division. Id. Plaintiff now moves for an intradistrict transfer, seeking re23
assignment of this case to the Oakland or San Francisco Division. See Dkt. No. 20. Defendants
24
have not filed a written opposition to plaintiff’s motion. The court finds this motion suitable for
25
resolution without oral argument. The hearing scheduled for June 1, 2012 is therefore vacated.
26
According to the Civil Local Rules, except for Intellectual Property Actions, Securities
27
Class Actions and Prisoner Petitions or Prisoner Civil Rights Actions, “all civil actions which arise
28

1
Case No.: 12-CV-00494-RMW
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR INTRADISTRICT TRANSFER
EDM

1

in the counties of . . . Alameda [or] San Mateo . . . shall be assigned to . . . the San Francisco

2

Division or the Oakland Division.” Civ. L. R. 3-2(d). On the other hand, “all civil actions which

3

arise in the counties of Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Benito or Monterey shall be assigned to the

4

San Jose Division.” Civ. L. R. 3-2(e).

5

“A civil action arises in the county in which a substantial part of the events or omissions

6

which give rise to the claim occurred or in which a substantial part of the property that is the

7

subject of the action is situated.” Civ. L. R. 3-2(c). Where an action has not been assigned to the

8

proper division within the district, or where the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the

9

interests of justice will be served by transferring the action to a different division, the court may

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

order an intradistrict transfer, subject to the provisions of the Court’s Assignment Plan. Civ. L. R.

11

3-2(h); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (“The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying

12

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

13

such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.”).

14

None of the events alleged in the complaint took place within the reach of the San Jose

15

Division. The subject property is in Freemont, California, which is located in Alameda County.

16

The only other location identified in the complaint—South San Francisco, where plaintiff attended

17

BA’s loan assistance event—is in San Mateo County. See Compl. ¶ 60. Further, as defendants

18

have not opposed plaintiff’s motion, the court assumes that they will suffer no prejudice from the

19

transfer. Finally, although the court has ruled on one motion to dismiss, this case has been pending

20

in this division for less than five months and the court has not invested substantial resources in

21

familiarizing itself with the issues.

22

Accordingly, the motion to transfer is granted. The Clerk shall reassign this action to a

23

judge in the Oakland-San Francisco Division. The hearing scheduled for June 1, 2012 is hereby

24

vacated.

25
26

It is so ordered.
DATED:

May 29, 2012

_____________________________________
RONALD M. WHYTE
United States District Judge

27
28

2
Case No.: 12-CV-00494-RMW
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR INTRADISTRICT TRANSFER
EDM