Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00260/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00260-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection 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

O/JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN RAFTER 

Plaintiff(s),

v.

I. GARY WASSERMAN, ET AL.

Defendant(s).

_________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. SA CV 08-1230 DOC (MLGx)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S

MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

Before the Court is Defendants I. Gary Wasserman, Deborah M. Kornheiser, and Wasserman

Kornheiser, LLP’s motion to dismiss the case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3), or alternatively,

to transfer the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406, due to improper venue. The Court finds the

matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local R. 7-15. After

considering the moving, opposing, and replying papers thereon, and for the reasons stated below,

the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants I. Gary Wasserman, Deborah M. Kornheiser, and

Wasserman Kornheiser, LLP's Motion to Transfer to the Southern District of California.

I. Factual Background

On November 3, 2008 Plaintiff (“Plaintiff”) John Rafter filed a complaint against Defendants

I. Gary Wasserman; Deborah M. Kornheiser; Wasserman Kornheiser, LLP; Associa; NN Jaeschke,

Case 3:09-cv-00260-DMS-CAB Document 45 Filed 02/11/09 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

Inc.; Michelle Steinbock; Verano Condominium Homeowners Association; Jane Doe Bookkeeper

#1; Jane Doe Bookkeeper #2, Matt Holman; Erika Koto; Judy Knowles; Alex Munoz; and Jonathon

Shufelt for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and other related causes of action.

All named Defendants reside in San Diego, California which sits in the Southern District of

California. 

Plaintiff is a member of Defendant Verano Condominium Home Owners Association

("Verano") for a condominium he owns in San Diego, California. Plaintiff made monthly payments

to Verano through Wells Fargo bank. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Associa and NN Jaeschke,

the home association management organizations responsible for Verano, failed to credit his monthly

payments. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Associa and NN Jaeschke subsequently took improper

debt collection action against him. Plaintiff additionally alleges that the Defendants I. Gary

Wasserman, Deborah M. Kornheiser, and Wasserman Kornheiser (“WK”) failed to investigate the

debt and improperly placed a lien on Plaintiff's property. Plaintiff informed WK of his poor health

and requested WK cease communications to allow for his recovery. Plaintiff alleges that WK failed

to cease communications and as a result, he was hospitalized. Plaintiff was located in the Central

District of California throughout these interactions with Defendants. Plaintiff’s ultimate

hospitalization also occurred in the Central District of California. 

II. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) allows a party to move for dismissal based

on improper venue. The burden is on the plaintiff to show that venue is proper. See Nissan Motor

Co. v. Nissan Computer Corp., 89 F. Supp. 2d 1154, 1161 (C.D. Cal. 2000) (noting that “most courts

hold that the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing proper venue”). This burden is satisfied

where the plaintiff provides a “prima facie showing of proper venue.” Id. The Court need not

accept the pleadings as true, and may look to facts outside of the pleadings. Murphy v. Schneider

Nat’l, Inc., 362 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2004). If the Court determines that the Rule 12(b)(3)

motion is sufficient, the Court must either dismiss or, “in the interest of justice,” transfer the case.

28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Case 3:09-cv-00260-DMS-CAB Document 45 Filed 02/11/09 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

III. Discussion

The Court finds that venue is improper in the Central District of California and

transfer to the Southern District of California in the interest of justice per the requirements of 28

U.S.C. § 1406(a).

A. Venue is improper in the Central District of California and proper in the 

 Southern District of California.

The Court finds that venue in the Central District of California is improper and venue

in the Southern District of California proper. When venue is improper in the transferor court, the

court must dismiss or transfer a claim “if it be in the interest of justice” “to any district or division

in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). According to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b),

venue in a 

civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of

citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, 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 be brought.

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Venue is appropriate in the Southern District of California because as noted

by WK’s Motion to Transfer and can be inferred by Plaintiff’s Complaint, all Defendants reside in

the Southern District of California. Furthermore, the unfair debt collection practices which allegedly

gave rise to Plaintiff’s poor health arise from conduct by Defendants which occurred in the Southern

District. Additionally, the property which the alleged unfair debt collection practices revolve is in

the Southern District. Conversely, venue is inappropriate in the Central District of California

because no Defendant lives in the Central District of California and the property subject to the unfair

debt collection practices is not located in the Central District of California. While the Plaintiff does

allege he was hospitalized within the Central District of California as a result of the alleged debt

Case 3:09-cv-00260-DMS-CAB Document 45 Filed 02/11/09 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

collection practices engaged in by the Defendants, these events do not rise to the level of the

“substantial” events requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 

B. Although venue is improper in the Central District of California, transfer of the 

 claim to the Southern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) is 

 appropriate.

Because this claim could have been filed in the Southern District of California it is in the

interest of justice to transfer rather than dismiss this claim. Papercraft Corp. v. Procter & Gamble

Co. 439 F.Supp. 1060, 1063 (D.C. Pa. 1977) (finding transfer of a claim to where it could have been

brought it in the interest of justice per 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a)). However, the Court notes that as of

February 11, 2009, no opposition from the Plaintiff to WK’s Motion to Transfer has been received

and that similar inaction has been grounds for dismissal. E.g. Pinesich v. Miller, 89 F.Supp. 539

(E.D. Pa. 1950) (noting that lack of reason to transfer does not require transfer).

IV. Disposition

Because the Court finds that venue is improper in the Central District of California and transfer to

the Southern District of California in the interest of justice per the requirements of 28 U.S.C. §

1406(a), it GRANTS Defendants’ WK Motion to Transfer. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 11, 2009 

 THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER

 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:09-cv-00260-DMS-CAB Document 45 Filed 02/11/09 Page 4 of 4