Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05212/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05212-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RENE BROWN,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

SINGLE ROOM HOUSING OCCUPATION

CORP. et al.,

Defendant(s). /

No. C 06-5212 MEJ

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE

ORDER VACATING NOVEMBER 15,

2007 HEARING

Pending before the Court is Defendants Single Room Occupancy Housing Corporation,

Anita U. Nelson, Ervin S. Munro, Steven Van Zile, Pamela Woodard, Barbara Nunley, and Charles

Watson's ("Moving Defendants") Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue or to Change Venue. 

(Doc. #13.) In their motion, Moving Defendants argue that all events or omissions giving rise to the

claim occurred in the Central District of Los Angeles, California, and all property that is the subject

of the action is situated in that district. Moving Defendants further argue that all named defendants

reside in Los Angeles. In response, Plaintiff argues that Moving Defendants have not shown that all

named defendants reside in Los Angeles. 

The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity

jurisdiction, 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). If a defendant challenges venue,

Case 3:06-cv-05212-MEJ Document 18 Filed 11/01/07 Page 1 of 2
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 plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that venue is proper in the forum. Airola v. King, 505

F. Supp. 30, 31 (D. Az. 1980); Simon v. Ward, 80 F. Supp. 2d 464, 468 (E.D. Pa. 2000). In the

interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct

district. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); District No. 1, Pacific Coast District v. Alaska, 682 F.2d 797, 799 (9th

Cir. 1982).

In this case, it appears that none of the three provisions in § 1391(b) apply to this district. 

Plaintiff has not shown that any named defendants reside in this judicial district, that any of the

events giving rise to the claim occurred here, nor that any defendant may be found in this district. 

To the contrary, Moving Defendants have shown that the events which gave rise to this claim all

occurred in Los Angeles and all Moving Defendants reside in that district. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Moving Defendants' motion and ORDERS that this matter

be transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. 

The hearing scheduled for November 15, 2007 is VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2007 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05212-MEJ Document 18 Filed 11/01/07 Page 2 of 2