Peet v. A2B Cargo Logistics, Inc. et al
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: #2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Plaintiff Gregory Peet. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action 1s DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1406(a). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED as moot. A separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 4/26/21. (CSG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
GREGORY PEET,
Plaintiff,
V.
A2B CARGO LOGISTICS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:21-cv-62-SNLJ
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon its own motion. On April 19, 2021, pro se plaintiff
Gregory Peet, a Missouri resident, filed a complaint in this Court against A2B Cargo Logistics,
Inc. and A2B Cargo, Inc. (also "A2B Cargo defendants"), and_ Coleman Strachman. Plaintiff
invokes this Court's diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and he has filed a
motion seeking leave to proceed informa pauperis.
All of plaintiffs claims arise from a 2019 motor vehicle accident that occurred in
Kentucky. Plaintiff alieges the accident was caused by Coleman Strachman while he was driving
a tractor-trailer truck in the course of his duties as an employee of the A2B Cargo defendants.
Plaintiff avers the A2B Cargo defendants are corporations domiciled in Illinois, and he avers
Coleman Strachman is an individual domiciled in North Carolina.
An action of this type may 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 (3) a judicial district in which any
defendant may be found, if.there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. 28
U'.S.C. § 139l(b). In this action, no defendant resides in this judicial district, none of the events
giving rise to plaintiffs claims occurred here, and there is more than one district in which this
action may otherwise be brought. Accordingly, the Court concludes none of the requirements of
§ 139l(b) are present in this judicial district, and the instant case therefore lays venue in the
wrong district.
Pursuant to statute, "[t]he district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue
in the wrong d_ivision or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such
case to any district or division in which it could have been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Here,
as noted above, there is more than one district in which this action may be brought. The claims
alleged in the complaint appear serious, and it cannot be said it is in the best interests of justice
for this Court to choose one of them and order the case transferred there. Doing so would serve
only to deprive plaintiff of the choice of judicial district, and potentially force him to litigate in a
district he finds inconvenient. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this action at this time,
without prejudice, due to improper venue. Nothing in this Memorandum and Order shall be
construed as an opinion concerning the merits of plaintiffs claims, nor shall it be construed as
precluding plaintiff from filing this action in a judicial district where venue is proper.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action 1s DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED as moot.
A separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.
Dated this
r2£-f(
day of April, 2021.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?