Peet v. A2B Cargo Logistics, Inc. et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Plaintiff Audrea Peet. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is 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
A2B CARGO LOGISTICS, INC., et al.,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon its own motion. On April 19, 2021, pro se plaintiff
Audrea 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. On the same date,
plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, or without prepayment of
required fees and costs. ECF No. 2. According to the complaint, this case is brought by plaintiff
"by way of her husband, Gregory Peet." ECF No. 1 at 1. However, the complaint and the motion
for leave to proceed informa pauperis are both signed by plaintiff Audrea Peet. See ECF Nos. 1
Plaintiff invokes this Court's diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. All of
plaintiffs claims arise from a 2019 motor vehicle accident that occurred in Kentucky. Plaintiff
alleges 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. § 1391(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
§ 1391(b) are present in this judicial district, and the instant case therefore lays venue in the wrong
Pursuant to statute, "[t]he district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in
the wrong division 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 her to litigate in a district
she 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.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is 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.
'j,, afl-, day of April, 2021.
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, J
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?