Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04932/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04932-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIN J. EILER,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL AGENCY, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-04932-DMR 

ORDER RE-OPENING CASE AND 

TRANSFERRING ACTION TO 

DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA

Re: Dkt. No. 18

On November 18, 2015, the court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”), noting that it 

appeared that the proper venue for this case is the District of South Dakota because that is where 

“a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” [Docket No. 14 

(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1391).] The court instructed Plaintiff to submit a written statement by no 

later than December 4, 2015, demonstrating the propriety of venue in this district and explaining 

why this matter should not be transferred to the United States District Court for South Dakota. 

[Docket No. 14.] The OSC stated that failure to respond by December 4, 2015 could result in 

dismissal of the matter.

Plaintiff did not timely respond to the OSC, and on December 9, 2015, the court dismissed 

the matter without prejudice for failure to prosecute. [Docket No. 16.] On December 14, 2015, 

after the case was dismissed, the court received Plaintiff’s response to the OSC. In her response, 

Plaintiff indicated her desire to proceed in California “since [Defendant] does have a place of 

business in California.” She also stated that in the event she could not proceed in this Court, she 

was requesting “transfer to a court that will be convenient to all parties involved and will allow 

plaintiff to proceed telephonically or by video from another courthouse by mail and/or electronic 

means.” [Docket No. 17 at 2.] Plaintiff’s mailing address is in Illinois, and she stated that she has 

lived in South Dakota “during the past several years,” but that most recently she has been “staying 

Case 4:15-cv-04932-DMR Document 19 Filed 02/04/16 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

in California area” while waiting to see a medical specialist in California. Id. at 1. On December 

22, 2015, the court received Plaintiff’s “Motion for Rehearing” in which she states that she 

“believes [the] case was prematurely dismissed without transfer when mail was received late,” and 

reiterates her request that “[t]his case should be transferred and reviewed, if not possible to hear 

within this courthouse.” [Docket No. 18.]

In light of Plaintiff’s submissions, the court hereby directs the Clerk to re-open this matter 

and transfer the case to the United States District Court for South Dakota. The court cautions 

Plaintiff that if her address changes while the action is pending, she is obligated to promptly file 

with the court a notice of change of address specifying any new address.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 4, 2016

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:15-cv-04932-DMR Document 19 Filed 02/04/16 Page 2 of 2