Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04932/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04932-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIN J. EILER,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL AGENCY, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-04932-DMR 

ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR 

ELECTRONIC FILING AND SERVICE 

AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

CASE SHOULD NOT BE 

TRANSFERRED

Plaintiff Erin J. Eiler filed this action on October 27, 2015. On November 9, 2015, 

Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Address Change,” in which she cites an Illinois Supreme Court rule in 

support of her request to be served at her email address. [Docket No. 10.] She also filed a 

“Motion for Electronic Filing,” in which she requests permission to electronically file documents 

in this case. [Docket No. 12.] Both motions are denied, since Plaintiff failed to provide any 

information about whether she meets the technical requirements for e-filing and Illinois court rules 

are not applicable in this Court.1 

Additionally, according to Plaintiff’s complaint, the primary incidents that form the basis 

of her complaint took place in South Dakota, and Plaintiff lives in Illinois. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1391, a case in which jurisdiction is not based solely on diversity of citizenship2 may be filed 

only 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 

 

1

See http://cand.uscourts.gov/ECF/proseregistration.

2

In her complaint, Plaintiff states that she is filing under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 and alleges that this 

court has federal question jurisdiction over this case.

Case 4:15-cv-04932-DMR Document 14 Filed 11/18/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

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 jurisdiction with respect to such action.

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Based on the allegations in the complaint, it appears that the proper venue 

for this case is the District of South Dakota because that is where “a substantial part of the events

or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). When a plaintiff files his 

or her case in the wrong district, the court must either dismiss the case or transfer it to the District 

Court in the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Thus, unless Plaintiff can show legal 

authority for venue in this district, the court will transfer the case to the District of South Dakota. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, by no later than December 4, 2015, Plaintiff 

shall file a statement explaining why this case should not be transferred to the United States 

District Court for South Dakota. Failure to respond by December 4, 2015 may result in dismissal 

of this matter for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 18, 2015

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:15-cv-04932-DMR Document 14 Filed 11/18/15 Page 2 of 2