Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03153/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03153-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights

---

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

ANGEL ORTIZ DIAMOND,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-03153-EDL 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

RE: TRANSFER TO THE CENTRAL 

DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA; ORDER 

REASSIGNING CASE

Re: Dkt. No. 7

On April 18, 2014, Plaintiff initiated an action that is currently pending in the Central 

District of California, Diamond v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. 14-cv-3825, related to a 

December 29, 2012 encounter with officers from the Los Angeles Police Department at a Los 

Angeles-area McDonald’s Restaurant. On July 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed this action, which appears 

to be related to the same incident.1 Plaintiff alleges that all Parties are residents of Los Angeles 

County and that “[e]ach of the acts of defendants alleged in this complaint were done by 

defendants under the pretense of law and ordinances, regulations, customs, and usages of the State 

of California, City of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles, and under authority of their 

business license issued by the City and County of Los Angeles.” (Cmplt. at 2.) On July 30, 2015, 

this Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be transferred 

to the Central District of California. On August 10, 2015, Plaintiff responded to the order. 

Plaintiff has not filed a consent or declination to magistrate judge jurisdiction.

A civil action may be brought 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 

 

1

Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, which the Court granted on July 

30, 2015. That order specified that determination of compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915 would be 

decided separately.

Case 3:15-cv-03153-JD Document 10 Filed 08/14/15 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

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) 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.A. § 1391(b); Martensen v. Koch, 942 F. Supp. 2d 983, 996 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (Corley, J.) 

(same). Although Plaintiff notes that he is familiar with several judges of the Northern District of 

California, that he previously resided in Oakland, and that several events seemingly unrelated to 

his complaint occurred within the Northern District, Plaintiff does not contest that all Defendants 

and relevant events occurred within the Central District of California. Accordingly, this Court 

recommends that this action be transferred to the Central District of California. This case is 

hereby reassigned to a district judge.

Any party may serve and file specific written objections to this recommendation within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(b); Civil Local Rule 72-3. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the 

right to appeal the District Court’s order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 14, 2015

________________________

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03153-JD Document 10 Filed 08/14/15 Page 2 of 2