Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02206/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02206-3/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

YADAO’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE

Case No. C06-02206 SI

1

Andrew W. Shalaby [SBN 206841]

7525 Leviston Ave

El Cerrito, CA 94530

tel. 510-528-8500, fax 510-528-2412

Attorney for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY FANT, BENNY AND PROCSY

YADAO FAMILY TRUST; BENNY YADAO,

and PROCSY YADAO

 Plaintiffs,

 vs.

RESIDENTIAL SERVICES VALIDATED

PUBLICATIONS; JOHN A. MYRTAKIS;

JAMKE, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL

PARTNERSHIP; LESLIE F. JENSEN; and

DOES 1-50,

 Defendants

Case No. C06-02206 SI

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR

CHANGE OF VENUE PURSUANT TO

UNOPPOSED MOTION

REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF ORAL

ARGUMENT

DATE: July 14, 2006

Courtroom: 10

Time: 9:00 a.m.

Judge: Hon. Susan Illston

TO THIS COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSELS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that plaintiffs BENNY AND PROCSY YADAO FAMILY

TRUST; BENNY YADAO, and PROCSY YADAO hereby move ex parte for change of venue

to the District Court in the Eastern District of California, located in Fresno, pursuant to the

unopposed motions for change of venue filed July 10, 2006 by defendants JOHN A.

MYRTAKIS, JAMKE, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, and LESLIE F.

JENSEN. No noticed motion is required because these plaintiffs do not oppose the request

for change of venue, and because the specified defendants do not oppose this ex parte request

for change of venue as the defendants themselves are moving for change of venue at this

Case 3:06-cv-02206-SI Document 35 Filed 07/10/2006 Page 1 of 4
 Case 3:06-cv-02206-SI Document 38 Filed 07/14/06 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

YADAO’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE

Case No. C06-02206 SI

2

time. 

Dated: July 10, 2006 ________________________________

Andrew W. Shalaby, Attorney for

Plaintiffs

 

Case 3:06-cv-02206-SI Document 35 Filed 07/10/2006 Page 2 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Susan Illston

Case 3:06-cv-02206-SI Document 38 Filed 07/14/06 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

YADAO’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE

Case No. C06-02206 SI

3

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 

I. DEFENDANTS ALSO SEEK CHANGE OF VENUE

On July 10, 2006 defendants JOHN A. MYRTAKIS, JAMKE, A CALIFORNIA

GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, and LESLIE F. JENSEN filed a motion to dismiss the

remaining claims against them due to improper venue, and for change of venue in the

alternative. The motion was filed after Plaintiffs BENNY AND PROCSY YADAO FAMILY

TRUST; BENNY YADAO, and PROCSY YADAO had met and conferred with

MYRTAKIS/JAMKE’s counsel on July 10, 2006 and agreed to a proposal to dismiss the

claims against MYRTAKIS and JAMKE, and also filed after these plaintiffs had already

filed their request for dismissal as to those defendants. Once the Court enters the dismissal

as to these defendants, their pending motion shall become moot anyway, leaving only the

joinder of defendant LESLIE F. JENSEN for hearing. The hearing on Ms. Jensen’s joinder

motion is not necessary because these plaintiffs do not oppose the request for change of

venue as to Ms. Jensen, and hereby move for change of venue as well. To the extent that Ms.

Jensen still has a pending joinder to a motion to “dismiss” due to “improper venue,” that

portion of the motion would appear to be moot as well since the motion of the moving parties

themselves is moot by way of the dismissal filed July 10, 2006 (once entered by the Court).

Pursuant to L.R. 7-10 (a) and (b), ex parte relief is appropriate because the relief is now

administrative in nature, and because with regard to this application for change of venue, all

the moving defendants also ask for change of venue to Fresno, and there is no opposition to

YADAO’s application for change of venue. The motions of all the remaining defendants as

well as the remaining plaintiffs herein therefore form a constructive stipulation for change

of venue. However, it should be pointed out that defendants MYRTAKIS and JAMKE are

actually being dismissed at this time (request already filed and awaiting entry), therefore only

remaining defendant LESLIE F. JENSEN, who resides in Modesto, California, would appear

Case 3:06-cv-02206-SI Document 35 Filed 07/10/2006 Page 3 of 4
 Case 3:06-cv-02206-SI Document 38 Filed 07/14/06 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

YADAO’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE

Case No. C06-02206 SI

4

to be at issue. A motion for change of venue is authorized pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406:

(a) For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a

district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division

where it might have been brought.

(b) Upon motion, consent or stipulation of all parties, any action, suit or

proceeding of a civil nature or any motion or hearing thereof, may be

transferred, in the discretion of the court, from the division in which pending

to any other division in the same district. Transfer of proceedings in rem

brought by or on behalf of the United States may be transferred under this

section without the consent of the United States where all other parties request

transfer.

The District Court in Fresno, as specified by the moving defendants, appears to be the

correct venue for Modesto. Please see accompanying Declaration of Andrew Shalaby.

Unless opposing parties and counsels indicate a desire for oral argument, it appears

oral argument is not necessary and therefore the moving plaintiffs also respectfully request

a waiver of oral argument to save the parties time and money.

Dated: July 10, 2006 

Andrew W. Shalaby, Attorney for

Plaintiffs

Case 3:06-cv-02206-SI Document 35 Filed 07/10/2006 Page 4 of 4
 Case 3:06-cv-02206-SI Document 38 Filed 07/14/06 Page 4 of 4