Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07479/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07479-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

As discussed below, the claims against Defendants Farmers 

 Insurance Exchange, Robert W. Brannen, James S. McWhorter 

 and Deborah A. Correll are dismissed.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY ERVIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY

OF SACRAMENTO, PATRICIA C. ESGRO,

FRAMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, ROBERT W.

BRANNEN, JAMES S. MCWHORTER, DEBORAH

A. CORRELL and DOES 1 through 5,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-7479 CW

ORDER GRANTING 

DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendants Judicial Council of California, Superior Court of

California, and the Honorable Patricia C. Esgro (together, Judicial

Defendants) move to dismiss this action on the grounds of improper

venue, or, in the alternative, to transfer this action based on

convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interests of

justice to the Eastern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1404 and 1406.1 Plaintiff Gary Ervin opposes the motion. 

Having considered all of the papers filed by the parties, the Court

Case 4:06-cv-07479-CW Document 26 Filed 05/18/07 Page 1 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 2

GRANTS the motion to dismiss and denies the motion to transfer.

BACKGROUND

On October 4, 2004, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court

(Pl.’s October 2004 Complaint) in Ervin v. Virga, et al., C 04-

03754 CW, which alleged that he has a heart murmur that was

aggravated by the Sacramento County Superior Court’s (SCSC) law and

motion system. He brought causes of action against the SCSC for

violating Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),

and other causes of action against various judges and court

personnel for, among other things, misconceiving Plaintiff as

insane, coercing him into settling his grievance, stealing and

tampering with court records, and insulting Plaintiff by using the

words “confusing” and “absurdity.” He likens those terms to racial

slurs. Pl.’s October 24 Complaint at ¶¶ 9-19.

On October 25, 2004, this Court transferred the case to the

Eastern District of California, after which Plaintiff voluntarily

dismissed it without prejudice to refiling. C 04-03754 CW, Docket

No. 11; Defs’ Mot. to Dismiss 1:13-1:17. On November 22, 2004,

Plaintiff filed a second complaint in the Northern District

captioned Ervin v. Judicial Council et al., case no. CV-04952 MJJ

(Pl.’s November 2004 Complaint). This complaint was based on the

same facts as Plaintiff’s October 2004 Complaint, and was assigned

to the Honorable Martin Jenkins. Pl.’s Mot. 2:1-2:8; Defs’ Mot. to

Dismiss 1:13-1:23, Ex. B. Plaintiff’s November 2004 Complaint was

likewise transferred to the Eastern District. CV-04952 MJJ, Docket

No. 20. The Eastern District court dismissed Plaintiff’s November

Case 4:06-cv-07479-CW Document 26 Filed 05/18/07 Page 2 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

The Court grants Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of 

 his pending Ninth Circuit appeal. See F.R.E. 201. 

3

Plaintiff requests that the Court dismiss with prejudice 

 his second cause of action against Defendants Farmers 

 Insurance Exchange and its in-house counsel. The Court 

 grants this request. The claims against Farmers Insurance 

 and its in-house counsel are dismissed with prejudice. 

4

Plaintiff moves to reverse this Court's January 26 order 

 relating the cases. (Docket # 11). In an order filed 

3

2004 Complaint with leave to amend. Defs’ Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. C. 

The Eastern District court later dismissed with prejudice the

action against Defendants Judicial Council and Superior Court of

California. Defs’ Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. D. Plaintiff is presently

appealing the Eastern District court’s dismissal in the Ninth

Circuit, Appeal No. 06-17374. Pl.’s Request for Judicial Notice.2

 

On December 6, 2006, Plaintiff filed his complaint in the

instant case, C 06-7479 CW (Pl.’s December 2006 Complaint). On

January 3, 2007, he filed a first amended complaint (FAC). His FAC

re-alleges the facts and causes of action from his October 2004

complaint, see FAC at ¶¶ 8-18, and adds a second claim of fraud

against Farmers Insurance Exchange and its in-house counsel, Robert

W. Brannen, James S. McWhorter, and Deborah A. Correll, arising

from the resolution of the original lawsuit that brought Plaintiff

into the SCSC system.3 Pl.’s FAC at ¶¶ 20-25. On January 19,

2007, the Judicial Defendants filed a notice of related cases

indicating that this case is related to Ervin v. Virga, et al., 

C 04-03754 CW. Docket No. 6. On January 26, 2007, the Court

related the cases.4 Docket No. 10. 

Case 4:06-cv-07479-CW Document 26 Filed 05/18/07 Page 3 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 concurrently with the instant order, the Court denies this 

 motion.

5

Defendants argue that Plaintiff improperly sues the 

Judicial Council to create jurisdiction in this district. 

However, Defendants confuse jurisdiction with venue. This 

Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim

because it arises under the ADA. Therefore, venue, not 

jurisdiction is at issue.

4

DISCUSSION

Defendants move to dismiss the action for improper venue, or,

in the alternative, to transfer it to the Eastern District of

California. They argue that venue is improper here because all

Defendants except the Judicial Council, as well as Plaintiff

himself, are residents of the Eastern District and all the

witnesses are located in the Eastern District. The place of the

alleged injury is also in the Eastern District. Defendants assert

that the Judicial Council, which has offices in both Sacramento and

San Francisco, is a sham defendant included solely for the purpose

of creating venue5 in this district, and that the FAC does not even

allege that the Judicial Council was asked and refused to provide

the accommodation Plaintiff sought under the ADA. Alternatively,

Defendants argue that this case should be transferred based on

convenience to the parties. Plaintiff responds that he wants to

litigate in the Northern District because there are Alternative

Dispute Resolution (ADR) proceedings in this district available

early in the case whereas the Eastern District does not provide

Case 4:06-cv-07479-CW Document 26 Filed 05/18/07 Page 4 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6

In his opposition, Plaintiff argues that Rule 1.100 of the 

 California Rules of Court constitutes California's consent 

 to ADA Title II actions being brought against California 

 judges. In their reply, Defendants argue that Rule 1.100 

 is inapplicable, but that the claims against Judge Esgro 

 must be dismissed on the ground of judicial immunity. 

 Because Defendants raised this argument only in their reply

 and this case is being dismissed, this Court will not 

 address whether the claims against Judge Esgro should be 

 dismissed with prejudice.

5

early ADR proceedings.6

Because the ADA confers federal question jurisdiction,

diversity is not the basis for jurisdiction. Section 1391(b)

provides:

A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely

on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise

provided by law, be brought only in (1) a judicial

district where any defendant resides, if all defendants

reside in the same State, (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) a judicial district in which any

defendant may be found, if there is no district in which

the action may otherwise be brought.

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

In this case, venue does not lie under § 1391(b)(2) because

all the events and omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in

the Eastern District of California. Venue does not lie under 

§ 1391(b)(3) because this action may be brought in the Eastern

District of California. Therefore, venue would be proper in this

district only if § 1391 (b)(1) applies. However, the only

Defendant with any connection to the Northern District of

California is the Judicial Council. The complaint makes the

Case 4:06-cv-07479-CW Document 26 Filed 05/18/07 Page 5 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 6

following allegations about the Judicial Council: (1) in ¶ 6, the

complaint describes the Judicial Council as a public entity located

and resident in the City and County of San Francisco; (2) in ¶ 16,

the complaint alleges that Plaintiff requested that Defendant

Superior Court Judge Esgro provide that Plaintiff’s case be

assigned to the “one judge assigned for all purposes” program or

that Judge Esgro ask that the Judicial Council assign Plaintiff’s

case to a “one judge provided for all purposes” program; and (3) in

¶ 18, the complaint alleges that Plaintiff seeks assignment to the

“one judge assigned for all purposes” program in the Sacramento

superior court and that the Judicial Council could provide this

program. In terms of relief, in ¶ 26, Plaintiff requests that the

Court enjoin Defendants Judicial Council, Sacramento Superior Court

and Judge Esgro from denying Plaintiff access to the “one judge

assigned for all purposes” program.

Thus, as pointed out by Judicial Defendants, the complaint

fails to allege that the Judicial Council was asked and refused to

provide the accommodation Plaintiff sought under the ADA. 

Plaintiff fails to respond to this argument. Under the allegations

in the complaint, therefore, Plaintiff has not stated a cause of

action against the Judicial Council, nor could he do so. 

Therefore, the inclusion of the Judicial Council does not provide

venue in this district under § 1391(b)(1). 

Therefore, the Court must analyze whether venue is proper

without considering the Judicial Council as a defendant. As

discussed previously, without the Judicial Council, all parties to

this action reside in the Eastern District of California and all

Case 4:06-cv-07479-CW Document 26 Filed 05/18/07 Page 6 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 7

the events and omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim occurred

in the Eastern District of California. Therefore, under § 1391(b),

the Eastern District is the only district in which venue is proper

for this lawsuit.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), when a case is filed in a district

in which venue is improper, the court may dismiss the case, or

transfer it, if it be in the interest of justice. The Court notes

that this is the third time Plaintiff has filed this case, based on

the same allegations, improperly in this district. The previous

two times, the case was transferred to the Eastern District. 

Therefore, the Court concludes that the interests of justice

require that this case be dismissed and not transferred.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion

to dismiss without prejudice to filing any non-duplicative claims

in the Eastern District of California. The Court denies the motion

to transfer. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 5/18/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-07479-CW Document 26 Filed 05/18/07 Page 7 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERVIN et al,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV06-07479 CW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court,

Northern District of California.

That on May 18, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies)

in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in

the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's

office.

Anne L. Thompson

David Bruce Owen

Nemecek & Cole

15260 Ventura Boulevard

Suite 920

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403-5399

Gary Ervin

4977 Hillhurst Drive

Fair Oaks, CA 95628

Thomas A. Blake

State Attorney General’s Office

455 Golden Gate Avenue

Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Dated: May 18, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Sheilah Cahill, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:06-cv-07479-CW Document 26 Filed 05/18/07 Page 8 of 8