Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03291/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03291-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANGEL ORTIZ DIAMOND II,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-15-3291 EMC

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE

Angel Ortiz Diamond II, proceeding pro se, has filed suit against multiple defendants,

including the City of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles, MacDonald Corp., and a MacDonald

franchise located in Los Angeles. Mr. Diamond has asked for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”). After reviewing the financial affidavit and the complaint, the Court ordered Mr. Diamond

to file a complete IFP application and to show cause as to why his case should not be transferred to

the Central District of California, where Los Angeles is located. 

The Court is now in receipt of Mr. Diamond’s response to the order to show cause. Having

reviewed that response, the Court concludes that there is no basis to maintain the action in this

District. As the Court noted in its prior order, Mr. Diamond appears to reside in Los Angeles, the

events described in his complaint all appear to have taken place in Los Angeles, and none of the

defendants are alleged to reside in this District. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (providing that

venue is proper 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 which a substantial part

of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is

Case 3:15-cv-03291-EMC Document 7 Filed 08/18/15 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 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”). That Mr. Diamond may not have had

positive experiences with the courts in Los Angeles in the past is not a justification to keep the

action in this venue.

Accordingly, the Court hereby transfers the instant action to the Central District of

California. The transferee court shall decide the merits of Mr. Diamond’s IFP application, as well as

the motion for preliminary injunction that he filed on July 20, 2015. 

The Clerk of the Court is ordered to transfer this case in accordance with this opinion

and administratively close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2015

_________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03291-EMC Document 7 Filed 08/18/15 Page 2 of 2