Washington v. Frontier System Integrator LLC
Filing
2
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 10/1/2012. (c/m 10/3/12 rs) (rss, Deputy Clerk) [Transferred from Maryland on 10/4/2012.]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
GEORGE WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRONTIER SYSTEM INTEGRATOR LLC
Defendant.
*
*
*
* CIVIL ACTION NO. RWT-12-2783
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On September 18, 2012, Plaintiff, a resident of Lanham, Maryland, filed the above-captioned
lawsuit, invoking this Court’s diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '1332(a). See ECF No. 1,
Case No. RWT 12-2783. Plaintiff alleges that he was wrongfully terminated from his employment
by Defendant, a Virginia-based limited liability company.
Id.
He further claims that he
successfully arbitrated his claim but that Defendant has failed to abide by the decisions of the
arbitrator. Id.
Diversity jurisdiction may exist in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1332, but venue is not
proper in this jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. '1391(b) provides:
A civil action may be brought in-(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are
residents of the State in which the district is located;
(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) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided
in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's
personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.
According to the facts as set forth in the Complaint, Defendant resides in Virginia, Plaintiff
apparently worked for Defendant in Virginia, and all of the events complained of occurred in
Virginia. There is no suggestion that Defendant is a Maryland resident, that any of the events giving
rise to the claim occurred in Maryland, or that Defendant is in any way subject to personal
jurisdiction in Maryland. Accordingly, there is no basis for finding that this Court is the proper
venue in which to adjudicate this matter. 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 Alexandria Division of
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. A separate order follows.
Date: October 1, 2012
/s/
ROGER W. TITUS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?