Yi v. Fox Valley Motorcars et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge J. Frederick Motz on 7/26/11. (c/m 7/27/11 jnl, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

CHONG SU YI,

:
v.

FOX VALLEY MOTORCARS, et al.,

: CIVIL ACTION NO. JFM-11-955
:
*********
MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff, a resident of Silver Spring, Maryland, has filed the above-captioned pro se
action. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff invokes this court’s diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1332(a).
It appears that diversity exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '1332; however, review of the
venue statutes illustrates that venue is not proper in this jurisdiction:
A civil action wherein jurisdiction is founded only on diversity of citizenship
may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in (1) a judicial
district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (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) a judicial district in which any defendant is subject to
personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, if there is no district in
which the action may otherwise be brought.
28 U.S.C. '1391(a).
The general federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. ' 1391(b), provides in relevant part: "A civil
action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship may ... be brought
only in (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides ... [or] (2) a judicial district in which a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred."
Defendant Fox Valley Motorcar is incorporated in Illinois. Defendant Lotus USA is

incorporated in Georgia The actions complained of all occurred in Illinois. It does not appear
that any of the defendants are Maryland residents or otherwise subject to personal jurisdiction in
Maryland. Nor did the events giving rise to plaintiff=s complaint occur in Maryland. As such
there is no basis for finding that this court has personal jurisdiction over defendants.
Accordingly, for the convenience of the parties and in the interest of justice, this case
shall be transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '1406(a) to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois. A separate order follows.

__July 26, 2011
(Date)

____/s/_______________________________
J. Frederick Motz
United States District Judge