Case ID: f-appx_4/html/0456-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Keith MAYDAK, as assignee for Confidential Services of America, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GTE CORP.; GTE Arkansas Incorporated; GTE California, Inc.; GTE Florida Incorporated; GTE Hawaiian Telephone Company Incorporated; GTE North Incorporated; GTE South Incorporated; GTE Southwest Incorporated; GTE Midwest Incorporated; Contel of California Incorporated, dba GTE California; Contel of Minnesota, dba GTE Minnesota; Contel of the South, dba GTE Systems of the South; Contel of Texas, dba GTE Texas; Contel of the West, dba GTE West, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 99-16086.
    D.C. No. CV-98-00737-MJJ.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 12, 2001.
    
    Decided Feb. 21, 2001.
    Before GOODWIN, LEAVY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      . The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Keith Maydak appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his action for lack of proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the question of whether venue is proper, see Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 841 (9th Cir.1986), and for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for improper venue, see Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1253 (9th Cir.1997). We affirm for the reasons stated in the district court’s order dismissing for improper venue, entered on April 27, 1999.

We decline to «consider the declaration received on April 24, 2000.

AFFIRMED. 
      
      . This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.