Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00386/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00386-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEX GALINDO and IRENE GALINDO,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

BALTIMORE AIRCOIL COMPANY, et al., 

Defendant(s). /

No. 07-0386 MHP

ORDER

TRANSFERRING

ACTION

This action was initiated in the Superior Court for the County of San Francisco and removed

to this district. The action arises out of an accident that occurred in Madera, California where

plaintiff Alex Galindo was employed by defendant Baltimore Aircoil Company. Madera, California

is in the Eastern District of California. None of the events giving rise to this claim occurred in this

district and none of the defendants reside in this district. The plaintiffs themselves reside in the

Eastern District. 

Although removal to this district is proper under 28 U.S.C. sec.1441(a), since the action was

brought in a state court within this district, the venue provisions of 28 U.S.C. sec.1391 make clear

that venue in this diversity action is properly in the Eastern District. In fact, there is no apparent

reason, other than a perception than San Francisco may provide a more plaintiff-friendly jury, why

this action was initiated in San Francisco.

Section 1391(a)(1) provides that venue is only proper in a “judicial district in which any

defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction..., if there is no district in which the action may

Case 3:07-cv-00386-MHP Document 21 Filed 05/09/07 Page 1 of 3
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

otherwise be brought.” Doctor’s Assocs. v. Stuart, 85 F.3d 975, 983 (2d Cir. 1996) (subparagraph 

 (a)(3) described as a “fall-back provision” where subparagaphs (1) or (2) do not provide venue). 

The court will not review whether there is venue under subparagraph (a)(1), since there clearly is

venue under subparagraph (a)(2) in that “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to

the claim occurred” in the Eastern District and none of the events or omissions occurred in the

Northern District. 

At the case management conference the parties conceded that there was no reason why the

action should remain in this district and that venue was proper in the Eastern District where

defendant Baltimore Aircoil maintains a manufacturing facility at which the plaintiff Alex Galindo

was injured. It is not claimed that either defendant has any facility in the Northern District.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is transferred to the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of California and the Clerk of Court shall transfer the file

forthwith.

Date: May 8, 2006 

MARILYN HALL PATEL

District Judge

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Case 3:07-cv-00386-MHP Document 21 Filed 05/09/07 Page 2 of 3
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

ENDNOTES

Case 3:07-cv-00386-MHP Document 21 Filed 05/09/07 Page 3 of 3