Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01901/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01901-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

KIMBERLEE HARTKE, 

OPINION & ORDER

Plaintiff,

v. 15-cv-102-jdp

SMITH AND ASSOCIATES,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Kimberlee Hartke is pursuing claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices 

Act, the Wisconsin Consumer Act, and the Civil Rights Act. These claims stem from Hartke’s 

unpaid rent in California, and from collection efforts that defendant Smith & Associates 

undertook at the behest of former defendants Jane and Christopher Ward, the property 

owners, and Westman Property Management, Inc., the property manager. Hartke’s case got 

off to a rough start after the court dismissed three of the defendants that she named in her 

complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Hartke has now moved to transfer this case to the 

Southern District of California, presumably so that she can bring the dismissed defendants 

back into the case. Because the interest of justice favors transfer, the court will grant Hartke’s 

motion.

BACKGROUND

The court summarized the facts of the underlying dispute in an earlier order. See 

Dkt. 28. The procedural background of this case is more pertinent to the present motion.

Hartke filed her complaint in February 2015, against Westman Property, the Wards, 

and Smith & Associates. Westman Property and the Wards moved to dismiss, contending 

Case 3:15-cv-01901-GPC-DHB Document 34 Filed 08/28/15 Page 1 of 4
2

that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over them and that Hartke’s complaint failed to 

state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Dkt. 8 and Dkt. 24. Westman Property and 

the Wards also asserted that venue was improper in this district, and they proposed, in the 

alternative, that the case be transferred to the Southern District of California. Dkt. 9.1

After the motion to dismiss came under advisement, Smith & Associates’s counsel 

moved to withdraw, citing his client’s lack of cooperation and communication, as well as its 

failure to perform its financial obligations. Dkt. 18. The court gave Smith & Associates an 

opportunity to respond to the motion, Dkt. 20, but the firm did not do so. Thus, the court 

granted counsel leave to withdraw. Dkt. 33.

Meanwhile, the court granted Westman Property and the Wards’ motion to dismiss, 

concluding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over them. Dkt. 28. This conclusion made it 

unnecessary to address Westman Property and the Wards’ contention that Hartke’s 

complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and that she had filed the 

case in the wrong venue. The court declined to reach the merits of those issues, although it 

commented that “some of those are likely meritorious.” Id. at 7. The court explained that the 

case would proceed against Smith & Associates, which had not contested personal 

jurisdiction. But the court indicated that it would “entertain a motion by plaintiff to transfer 

this case” to a court with personal jurisdiction over all defendants so that she could resolve all 

of her claims in one case. Id.

 1 Westman Property also challenged whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction over 

this case by arguing that Hartke’s complaint so utterly failed to state a claim for relief that it 

did not “arise under” federal law. But that argument confused the difference between Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The court is satisfied that Hartke’s claims 

arise under federal law.

Case 3:15-cv-01901-GPC-DHB Document 34 Filed 08/28/15 Page 2 of 4
3

Two weeks after the court dismissed Hartke’s claims against Westman Property and 

the Wards, she filed a motion to transfer this case to the Southern District of California, 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Dkt. 29. Smith & Associates did not file an opposition to 

Hartke’s motion, but Westman Property and the Wards did.

ANALYSIS

In opposition to Hartke’s motion, Westman Property and the Wards merely renew 

their arguments that Hartke’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted. Dkt. 30 and Dkt. 31. They therefore contend that transfer would not be in the 

interest of justice because Hartke’s case is doomed no matter where she tries it. But these are 

merits-based arguments. Westman Property and the Wards successfully sought to be 

dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, and they cannot reenter this case now to ask this court 

to decide the case on the merits. Westman Property and the Wards must present these 

arguments to a court with personal jurisdiction over them. Like subject matter jurisdiction, 

“[p]ersonal jurisdiction, too, is an essential element of the jurisdiction of a district court, 

without which the court is powerless to proceed to an adjudication.” Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon 

Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 584 (1999) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

Turning to Hartke’s motion, the court concludes that the interest of justice requires 

transferring this case to the Southern District of California. Hartke moves to transfer this 

case pursuant to § 1406(a)—as opposed to § 1404(a)—which means that she acknowledges

that venue is not proper in the Western District of Wisconsin. The court must therefore 

either dismiss this case or transfer it to another district. Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. 

Court for W. Dist. of Tex., 134 S. Ct. 568, 577-78 (2013). Smith & Associates does not 

Case 3:15-cv-01901-GPC-DHB Document 34 Filed 08/28/15 Page 3 of 4
4

oppose the motion, and there is no dispute that Hartke could have brought this suit in the 

Southern District of California. As the court explained in its earlier order, transferring this 

case will allow Hartke to try all of her claims in one case against every potential defendant. 

And dismissal of her case could cause Hartke to lose the ability to litigate her claims because 

of the statute of limitations. See Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463, 467 (1962). For these 

reasons, transfer is appropriate.

The court has one closing clarification. This case now involves only Hartke and Smith 

& Associates. If Hartke wants to bring Westman Property and the Wards back into this case, 

then she will have to take up that issue with the California court.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff Kimberlee Hartke’s motion to transfer venue, Dkt. 29, is GRANTED.

2. This case is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of California.

Entered August 28, 2015.

BY THE COURT:

/s/

________________________________________

JAMES D. PETERSON

District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01901-GPC-DHB Document 34 Filed 08/28/15 Page 4 of 4