Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01164/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01164-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:2671 Federal Tort Claims Act

---

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT MARSILI,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-10-1164 EMC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO

REASSIGN CASE TO SAN JOSE

DIVISION

(Docket No. 4)

Currently pending before the Court is Defendant the United States’s motion to reassign the

above-referenced case from the San Francisco to the San Jose Division. Having considered the

parties’ briefs and accompanying submissions, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion for

reassignment.

Civil Local Rule 3-2(c) governs the assignment of cases within the Northern District of

California. It provides that “[a] civil action arises in the county in which a substantial part of the

events or omissions which give rise to the claim occurred or in which a substantial part of the

property that is the subject of the action is situated.” Civ. L.R. 3-2(c). This language is similar to

that used in the federal statute governing venue. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Because the language used

in Rule 3-2(c) is similar to that used in the federal venue statute, the Court looks to case law

interpreting the latter for guidance.

With respect to § 1391’s “transactional venue” provision, the Wright and Miller treatise

notes as follows: “In tort cases, when determining whether a substantial part of the events or

Case 5:10-cv-01164-EJD Document 6 Filed 05/21/10 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

omissions giving rise to the plaintiff’s claim occurred or did not occur in the district for venue

purposes, the factors that courts focus on include the place where the allegedly tortious actions

occurred and the place where the harms were felt.” Wright, Miller, et al., 14D Fed. Prac. & Proc.

Juris. § 3806.1 (3d ed.). Most courts have agreed. See, e.g., Trico Bancshares & Subsidiaries v.

Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons LLP, No. 2:09-CV-01700 GEB JFM, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96095, at

*6 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2009); Estate of Abtan v. Blackwater Lodge & Training Ctr., 611 F. Supp. 2d

1, 8 (D.D.C. 2009).

In the instant case, the allegedly tortious actions clearly took place in Santa Clara County. 

Mr. Marsili has alleged that a surgery was improperly performed by government employees at the

Palo Alto VA Medical Facility, which is located in Santa Clara County. See Compl. ¶ 7. 

Furthermore, contrary to what Mr. Marsili argues, the harms were also sustained in Santa Clara

County. That is, Mr. Marsili sustained harm in Santa Clara County when the “botched” surgery took

place there. The fact that his injuries only manifested themselves while he was convalescing in his

home in San Mateo County does not mean that the harm did not take place until then. This is not a

situation comparable to Myers v. Bennett Law Offices, 238 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir. 2001)

(concluding that one of the harms suffered by the plaintiffs was akin to the tort of invasion of

privacy and was felt in Nevada where they resided).

Accordingly, the Court grants the United States’s motion to reassign the case to the San Jose

Division.

This order disposes of Docket No. 4.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 21, 2010

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:10-cv-01164-EJD Document 6 Filed 05/21/10 Page 2 of 2