Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02575/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02575-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARRIER COUSER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12-CV-2575-LAB-WVG

ORDER RE: VENUE

vs.

PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES, INC.

d/b/a LEGAL SHIELD; TERRY FRICK;

and CALLFIRE INC.,

Defendant.

Having further considered the venue problem that it flagged in this case, the Court no

longer believes sending this case to the Central District is the right thing to do. First, the fact

that responsive pleadings have been filed means Defendants have waived any argument

that venue is lacking. Levald v. City of Palm Desert, 998 F.2d 680, 686–87 (9th Cir. 1993);

Concession Consultants, Inc. v. Mirisch, 355 F.2d 369, 371 (2d Cir. 1966). Second, one of

those responsive pleadings is a motion to dismiss that is still pending, and the Court is

unwilling to drop that on the desk of another judge in the Central District. Third, the Court

itself has partially misconstrued the venue rules here, although not in any way that has led

it to the wrong ultimate conclusion. In its first Order to Show Cause, for example, it didn’t

recognize that 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3) is a fall-back venue provision, assuming venue can’t

be established under §§ 1391(b)(1) or 1391(b)(2). See Hamad v. Gates, 2010 WL 4511142

at *5 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 2, 2010). The Court has also, it believes, construed § 1391(b)(3)

- 1 -

Case 3:12-cv-02575-LAB-WVG Document 50 Filed 01/15/14 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

in a way that fails to differentiate it from § 1391(b)(2). But again, neither of those errors

make its conclusion that venue is improper here wrong. 

The fact is that Couser erred here by paying scant attention to the venue statute when

she filed this case, the Defendants erred by doing nothing, and the Court erred by

recognizing the problem at too late of a juncture and assuming it could act sua sponte when

responsive pleadings had already been filed. This case should stay in this District. That

said, Hyde & Swigart is warned that the Court will screen all new case filings and either

dismiss or transfer those in which venue appears to be improper. The Court will rule soon

on the pending motion to dismiss in this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 15, 2014

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 -

Case 3:12-cv-02575-LAB-WVG Document 50 Filed 01/15/14 Page 2 of 2