Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01974/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01974-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Racketeering (RICO) 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Jacob Winding, proceeding in pro se, filed this case in the Northern District of 

California alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”

at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq.). Doc. 1. He listed himself, ASAP Technical Service, Inc., and Top to 

Bottom Cleaning Service as plaintiffs. Doc. 1. The Northern District issued an order dismissing 

claims with prejudice brought by the entities for failure to prosecute. Doc. 16. Because all of the 

subject properties are located in counties governed by the Eastern District of California, the action 

was transferred to this district. Doc. 32. It was assigned a case number for the Eastern District of 

California, Fresno Division.

I. VENUE

“A civil action may be brought in—

(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the 

State in which the district is located;

(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) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this 

section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal 

ASAP TECHNICAL SERVICE INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A., et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:15-CV-1379---SMS 

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

Case 2:15-cv-01974-KJM-AC Document 38 Filed 09/18/15 Page 1 of 3
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

jurisdiction with respect to such action.

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). “The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in 

the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to 

any district or division in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Also, “[f]or 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). Section 1404(a) allows a trial court to transfer an action to a more convenient court when 

the action presents issues and requires witnesses that make one district court more convenient than 

another. Continental Grain Co. v. Barge FBL-585, 364 U.S. 19, 26 (1960). The decision whether 

to transfer venue under Section 1404(a) is committed to the sound discretion of the district court 

and should be exercised in light of all the circumstances of a case. Decker Coal Co. v. 

Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986).

The Eastern District of California comprises the counties of Stanislaus, Merced, and San 

Joaquin, among others. 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). Actions arising in Stanislaus and Merced counties shall 

be commenced in the U.S. District Court sitting in Fresno, while actions arising in San Joaquin 

county shall be commented in the U.S. District Court sitting in Sacramento. Local Rule 120(d). 

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is brought against six defendant entities and eight 

individual notary publics. No defendant resides in the Eastern District. There are eight real 

properties at issue, five of which are situated in Stockton, California, in San Joaquin County. Two 

are in Modesto, California, in Stanislaus County. One is in Merced, California, in Merced County. 

Hence, a “substantial part of property that is the subject of the action” is situated in both the 

Fresno and Sacramento division judicial districts. Venue is permissible in the Fresno Division, but 

the Sacramento Division is more convenient. Five of the eight subject real properties are located in 

San Joaquin County, governed by the Sacramento Division. Plaintiff also resides in San Joaquin 

County. Hence, for the convenience of parties and in the interest of justice, this action will be 

transferred to the U.S District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division.

II. ORDER

The Clerk shall TRANSFER this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern 

Case 2:15-cv-01974-KJM-AC Document 38 Filed 09/18/15 Page 2 of 3
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

3

District of California, Sacramento Division and shall close this court’s file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 17, 2015 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-01974-KJM-AC Document 38 Filed 09/18/15 Page 3 of 3