Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00825/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00825-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ASCHILEW JEMBER, FEREDE NEGASH,

LEILTI MESFIN, AND LUNCH BOX

RESTAURANT

Plaintiffs,

 v.

DOWNEY SAVINGS AND LOAN

ASSOCIATION F.A., WORLD LENDING

GROUP, BANK OF THE WEST, SHUMEY

MAMO, HAYWARD R. COOK, JR.,

JENNIFER LARGET, MIGUEL MONERO,

EDWARD GUNTHER, AND BARBARA

BRANN,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-00825 WHA

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

The above-captioned action was originally filed in Alameda County Superior Court, but

removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California due to federal

questions raised in the complaint. Because one or more parties declined to proceed before

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Laporte, this action was recently transferred to the undersigned.

Civil Local Rule 3–2(e) provides that all civil actions which arise in Santa Clara County

shall be assigned to the San Jose Division of the Northern District of California. “Whenever a

Judge finds, upon the Judge’s own motion or the motion of any party, that a civil action has not

been assigned to the proper division within this district in accordance with this rule, or that the

convenience of parties and witnesses and the interests of justice will be served by transferring

Case 3:05-cv-00825-WHA Document 17 Filed 05/23/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

the action to a different division within the district, the Judge may order such transfer, subject to

the provisions of the Court’s Assignment Plan.” Civil L. R. 3–2(f).

A preliminary assessment of the complaint reveals that plaintiffs, who are pro se, all

reside in Santa Clara, California (Compl. ¶ 1). In addition, the property they were seeking to

refinance is located in San Jose, California (id. ¶ 7). Defendants (i.e., the banks and various

bank employees involved in the refinancing) are apparently also located in San Jose.

The parties are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be

transferred to the San Jose Division of this Court. Any objections to the transfer must be filed

by JUNE 3, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 2005 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-00825-WHA Document 17 Filed 05/23/05 Page 2 of 2