Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00019/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00019-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

1

 Plaintiff filed similar motions in his other two cases pending before this Court: Contreras v.

Liberty Maritime Corporation et al., 09-CV-231-H (AJB); and Contreras v. Lulley et al., 09-CV-53-

H (AJB). 

- 1 - 09cv19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROCKY MEL CONTRERAS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09-CV-0019-H (WMC)

ORDER 

(1) GRANTING MOTION FOR

TEMPORARY CONTINUANCE

[Doc. No. 36];

(2) DENYING MOTION FOR

CHANGE OF VENUE AS

MOOT [Doc. No. 36]; AND

(3) DENYING AMENDED

MOTION FOR CHANGE OF

VENUE [Doc. No. 42.]

vs.

STEPHEN COOLEY MAHAN; and

LIBERTY MARITIME

CORPORATION,

Defendants.

On January 5, 2009, Plaintiff Rocky Mel Contreras, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint

against Defendants Stephen Cooley Mahan and Liberty Maritime Corporation. (Doc. No. 1.)

On January 20, 2010, Defendants Mahan and Liberty filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

(Doc. No. 30.) On February 11, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for change of venue and motion

to continue.1

 (Doc. No. 36.) On February 11, 2010, Plaintiff also filed a motion for extension

Case 3:09-cv-00019-H-WMC Document 48 Filed 03/12/10 Page 1 of 4
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

 As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion to

dismiss. 

- 2 - 09cv19

to file a response in opposition to Defendants’ motion. (Doc. No. 38.) On February 18, 2010,

the Court granted Plaintiff an extension to oppose Defendants’ motion until March 4, 2010.2

(Doc. No. 39.) On February 18, 2010, the Court requested briefing from Defendants in

response to Plaintiff’s motion for change of venue. (Doc. No. 40.) On February 22, 2010,

Plaintiff filed an amended motion for change of venue to correct the error in the original

motion. (Doc. No. 42.) On March 4, 2010, Defendants filed their response in opposition to

Plaintiff’s motion for change of venue. (Doc. No. 45.) For the following reasons, the Court

GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to continue and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for change of venue.

Discussion

Plaintiff’s motion requests a change of venue from the United States District Court for

the Southern District of California to the United States District Court for the Eastern District

of California. (Doc. No. 42 at 2.) Plaintiff also seeks a continuance “pending the request for

change of venue.” (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff alleges that the convenience of parties and witnesses

and the interest of justice warrant the transfer. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that the current venue is

a six-hour drive from his home, while the United States District Court for the Eastern District

of California is only a 45-minute drive. (Id. at 2.) Under the applicable venue provisions,

however, the defendant’s residence may be relevant, but the plaintiff’s residence is irrelevant.

A district court may transfer any civil action“[f]or the convenience of parties and

witnesses, in the interest of justice” to any other district or division where it might have been

brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). A civil action where the jurisdiction is not founded on diversity

of citizenship may be brought only in 

(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the

same State, (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) a judicial district in which any

defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise

Case 3:09-cv-00019-H-WMC Document 48 Filed 03/12/10 Page 2 of 4
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

 The Court notes that Plaintiff filed multiple cases in the Southern District: Contreras v.

McKenna et al., 08-CV-44-BEN (WMC); Contreras v. Brudzinski, 08-CV-1154-JLS (POR); Contreras

v. Vazquez, 08-CV-1362-BEN (WMC); Contreras v. Mahan et al., 09-CV-19-H (WMC); Contreras

v. Lulley et al., 09-CV-53-H (AJB); Contreras v. Liberty Maritime Corporation et al., 09-CV-231-H

(AJB); Contreras v. Vazquez et al., 09-CV-1267-IEG (CAB); and Contreras v. Vasquez et al., 09-CV2359-IEG (CAB).

4

 Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Liberty’s address is 1979 Marcus 14 Avenue, Suite 200, Lake

Success, New York 11042, and that Defendant Mahan resides in Texas. (See Doc. No. 12, FAC.) 

- 3 - 09cv19

be brought. 

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

On January 5, 2009, Plaintiff brought this action in the United States District Court for

the Southern District of California.3

 (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

alleges:

Assignment to the U.S. District Court/Southern District of California is

proper even though the original violations occurred at sea aboard the U.S.

Flagship Liberty Eagle, the violations were numerously repeated after returning

to U.S. soil, most substantially in California. The most recent of these violations

occurred again on August 19, 2008 in San Diego county . . . .

(Doc. No. 12, FAC at 1.) In their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for change of venue,

Defendants argue that the Eastern District is not the forum where this action might have been

brought, because it lacks any significant contact with the activities alleged in the complaint.

(Doc. No. 45 at 8.) The Court agrees. Neither Plaintiff’s motion, nor his complaint,

demonstrate any connection this action may have with the Eastern District of California. See

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). None of the Defendants reside in the Eastern District.4 Defendant

Liberty Maritime Corporation does not have offices or employees in the Eastern District of

California. (Doc. No. 45-1, Campbell Decl. ¶ 2.) None of the events giving rise to the

complaint occurred in the Eastern District. (See FAC.) Because this action could not have

been brought in the Eastern District, transfer to that district is not proper. See 28 U.S.C. §§

1391(b), 1404(a). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for change of venue.

///

///

Case 3:09-cv-00019-H-WMC Document 48 Filed 03/12/10 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 - 09cv19

Conclusion

For the reasons above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to continue, DENIES

as moot Plaintiff’s motion for change of venue, and DENIES Plaintiff’s amended motion

for change of venue. Because the Court has now ruled on Plaintiff’s motion for change of

venue, the Court directs Plaintiff to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss no

later than March 29, 2010. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 12, 2010

________________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:09-cv-00019-H-WMC Document 48 Filed 03/12/10 Page 4 of 4