Fairchild v. Extra space storage, inc. et al

Filing 13

ORDER (1) Granting #9 Joint Motion to Extend Time for Filing of Responsive Pleading and (2) Addressing Plaintiff's Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause. Extra space storage, inc. SHALL RESPOND to the Complaint on or before 4/20/2021. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 4/1/2021. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (tcf)

Case 3:21-cv-00393-JLS-DEB Document 13 Filed 04/01/21 PageID.453 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Case No.: 21-CV-393 JLS (DEB)

ALISON HELEN FAIRCHILD,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

ORDER (1) GRANTING JOINT
MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR
FILING OF RESPONSIVE
PLEADING AND (2) ADDRESSING
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO THE
COURT’S ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE

v.
EXTRA SPACE STORAGE INC.;
SMARTSTOP SELF-STORAGE REIT,
INC.; COUNTY OF SAN BERNADINO;
JOHN STROKIS; MICHAEL CREAR;
KIMBERLY STROUD; and DOES 1–10,

15
16
17

Defendants.

18

(ECF Nos. 9, 12)

19

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Alison Helen Fairchild (“Plaintiff”) and

20

Defendant Extra Space Storage Inc.’s (“Extra”) Joint Motion to Extend Time for Filing of

21

Responsive Pleading (“Joint Mot.,” ECF No. 9) and Plaintiff’s Response to the Court’s

22

Order to Show Cause (“Response,” ECF No. 12).

23

On March 8, 2021, the Court ordered Plaintiff Alison Helen Fairchild “to show cause

24

as to why venue is proper in the Southern District of California . . . within fourteen (14)

25

days of the date on which this Order is electronically docketed.” ECF No. 4 (“OSC”) at 4

26

(emphasis in original). The Court noted that, “[s]hould Plaintiff fail to comply with this

27

Order, the Court may either transfer this action to the Central District of California or

28

///
1
21-CV-393 JLS (DEB)

Case 3:21-cv-00393-JLS-DEB Document 13 Filed 04/01/21 PageID.454 Page 2 of 3

1

dismiss the action without prejudice to Plaintiff re-filing the action in a district where venue

2

is proper.” Id.

3

Per the Joint Motion, Plaintiff and Extra request that the Court extend Extra’s time

4

to respond to the Complaint by fourteen days “to avoid duplication of issues being

5

addressed in a response to the OSC and in a responsive pleading to the Complaint.” Joint

6

Mot. at 2. Per the OSC, Plaintiff’s Response was due on March 22, 2021, see OSC at 4;

7

however, Plaintiff’s Response is dated March 23, 2021, and was received by the Court on

8

March 26, 2021, see generally Response. Although Plaintiff’s Response is untimely, the

9

Court accepts the late filing and briefly addresses it here. Per the Response, Plaintiff

10

“respectfully requests that this Court not dismiss Plaintiff’s civil rights complaint” because

11

she plans to “amend her complaint and drop” all the present Defendants save Extra and

12

“add at least two [E]xtra . . . executives,” which Plaintiff contends “will give the Southern

13

District Court diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).” Id. at 1–2.

14

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(A) provides that “[a] party may amend its

15

pleading once as a matter of course within . . . 21 days after serving it.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

16

15(a)(1)(A). The Joint Motion indicates that Extra was served on March 16, 2021;

17

accordingly, Plaintiff has the absolute right to file an amended complaint consistent with

18

her Response on or before April 6, 2021. Should Plaintiff do so, the amended complaint

19

would supersede her Complaint and become the operative pleading, see Ramirez v. Cty. of

20

San Bernadino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015), rendering the OSC moot. Should

21

Plaintiff fail to file an amended complaint on or before April 6, 2021, she may still file an

22

amended complaint as of right within 21 days after service of any responsive pleading or

23

certain motions, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B); otherwise, Plaintiff may only amend her

24

Complaint “with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave,” id. 15(a)(2).

25

The Court notes that the Response did not attempt to justify venue in this District

26

according to the allegations of the original Complaint and therefore apparently concedes

27

that venue is presently improper in this District; accordingly, to the extend Plaintiff fails to

28

amend her Complaint and Extra and/or any other Defendant responds to the OSC objecting
2
21-CV-393 JLS (DEB)

Case 3:21-cv-00393-JLS-DEB Document 13 Filed 04/01/21 PageID.455 Page 3 of 3

1

to venue, the Court will transfer this matter to the U.S. District Court for the Central District

2

of California.

3

The Court further notes for Plaintiff’s benefit that the Court harbors significant

4

doubts that venue will be proper even should Plaintiff amend the Complaint as indicated

5

in her Response. Venue and subject matter jurisdiction are distinct issues. Venue is “a

6

matter of litigational convenience,” whereas subject matter jurisdiction “concerns a court’s

7

competence to adjudicate a particular category of cases.” Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546

8

U.S. 303, 305 (2006). Plaintiff asserts that her proposed amendments to the Complaint

9

will “give [this] Court diversity jurisdiction” over her case. Response at 2. However, as

10

Plaintiff asserts claims arising under federal statutes—including, inter alia, the Americans

11

with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, see Compl. at 2—federal

12

question jurisdiction presumptively exists over those claims, Cook Inlet Region, Inc. v.

13

Rude, 690 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that “there is federal question

14

jurisdiction over a federal-law claim simply by virtue of its being a claim brought under

15

federal law”), and thus the Court may in its discretion exercise supplemental jurisdiction

16

over any related state law claims, see United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715,

17

725 (1966). Accordingly, Plaintiff need not establish diversity jurisdiction, as a basis for

18

subject matter jurisdiction already appears to exist. However, the same concerns about

19

venue raised in the OSC appear problematic, given that not all of Plaintiff’s proposed

20

defendants reside in the State of California and the events at issue all appear to have taken

21

place in San Bernadino County, which is situated within the Central District of California.

22

See OSC at 3–4.

23
24
25
26

In light of the foregoing and good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the Joint
Motion. Extra SHALL RESPOND to the Complaint on or before April 20, 2021.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 1, 2021

27
28
3
21-CV-393 JLS (DEB)