Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00990/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00990-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

- 1 - 10cv990

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN B. LEDGARD,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10-CV-990-MMA (POR)

vs. ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED

MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

[Doc. No. 8]

ERIC WEBBER, GLENDALE (CA)

POLICE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF

GLENDALE (CA),,

Defendant.

This civil rights matter is before the Court on Defendants Eric Webber, Glendale (CA) Police

Department, and the City of Glendale (CA)’s Motion to Transfer Venue to the Central District of

California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) [Doc. No. 8]. Plaintiff Kevin B. Ledgard, proceeding pro

se, has not filed an opposition to the motion. The Court took the matter under submission on the

papers and without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1 [Doc. No. 11]. For the

following reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion. 

DISCUSSION

This case arises out of events surrounding the criminal investigation and eventual arrest of

Plaintiff by Detective Eric Webber of the Glendale, California Police Department. Plaintiff alleges

that Defendants violated his Fourteenth, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. Defendants now request

that the Court exercise its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and transfer venue to the Central

Case 3:10-cv-00990-MMA-POR Document 12 Filed 10/25/10 Page 1 of 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

1

 Local Civil Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c) provides that “If an opposing party fails to file the papers in the

manner required by Civil Local Rule 7.1. e.2, that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a

motion or other request for ruling by the court.” As such, the Court has the option of granting

Defendants’ motion on the basis of Plaintiff’s failure to respond, but chooses in this instance to grants

the motion on its merits. 

- 2 - 10cv990

District of California, arguing that all relevant actions occurred in Los Angeles County, within the

Western Division of the Central District, with the sole exception of Plaintiff’s ultimate arrest. 

“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may

transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.” 28

U.S.C. § 1404(a). The Court finds that venue is proper in the Central District. Generally, there is a

strong presumption in favor of the plaintiff’s choice of forum. Ravelo Monegro v. Rosa, 211 F.3d

509, 513 (9th Cir. 2000). In addition, courts will generally not order a transfer unless the

“convenience” and “justice” factors strongly favor venue elsewhere. Securities Investor Protection

Corp. v. Vigman, 764 F.2d 1309, 1317 (9th Cir. 1985). Here, Plaintiff does not oppose the transfer,

and Defendants sufficiently allege that the Central District provides a more convenient forum.1 The

Court has reviewed the pleadings in this matter, and agrees. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the above-stated reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion. The Court

hereby ORDERS this case transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of

California (Western Division) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 25, 2010

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00990-MMA-POR Document 12 Filed 10/25/10 Page 2 of 2