Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-02373/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-02373-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

ARIZONA YAGE ASSEMBLY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:20-cv-03098-WHO 

ORDER TRANSFERRING VENUE

Re: Dkt. No. 61

The plaintiffs—Arizona Yagé Assembly, the North American Association of Visionary 

Churches, and Clay Villanueva—move to transfer this case to the United States District Court for 

the District of Arizona and for an additional 30 days to file an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 61. 

The defendants that have submitted filings do not oppose the transfer or extension. Dkt. Nos. 63, 

64. This matter can be resolved without oral argument; the hearing is VACATED. See L.R. 7-

1(b). For the reasons that follow, the motion is GRANTED.

The short but involved history of this suit is surveyed in an order I issued on a group of

motions on September 21, 2020 (“September 21 Order”) [Dkt. No. 57]. As relevant here, I 

dismissed the State of Arizona, Maricopa County, and officials of both governments for lack of 

personal jurisdiction. September 21 Order 16–23. As a result, the only defendants who remained 

were federal agencies and officers in their official capacities. I then denied the plaintiffs’ motions 

for two preliminary injunctions. Id. 23–29. I noted that there are likely numerous barriers to the 

plaintiffs successfully obtaining injunctions and pursuing their claims. Id. 23. But, as I explained, 

“both motions fail for another, more preliminary reason. The plaintiffs have not demonstrated a 

likelihood of success on the merits—or even serious questions going to the merits—because they 

have not pleaded or shown that venue is proper in this District.” Id. 23.

Case 2:20-cv-02373-ROS Document 65 Filed 11/06/20 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

Because the suit was narrowed to be against only federal officers and agencies, venue was 

proper “in any judicial district in which (A) a defendant in the action resides, (B) 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 (C) the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the 

action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1). The plaintiffs argued that venue was proper under Subsection A 

but had not pleaded or demonstrated that any of them resided in the Northern District of 

California. Id. 24–28. My September 21 Order explains this finding in detail and I incorporate it 

here. I permitted the plaintiffs 30 days to amend their complaint. Now, they instead move to 

transfer this case.

Transfer is proper because, as my September 21 Order held, I lack personal jurisdiction 

over some defendants and this is the wrong venue for a suit against the others. But it appears that 

venue—as well as personal jurisdiction—lies in the District of Arizona. My September 21 Order 

establishes that at least Villanueva resides in that District. Id. 28. Both entity plaintiffs also 

appear to reside there. Id. 25–28. The events alleged in the complaint all occurred in Arizona. 

Especially in light of the defendants’ non-opposition to transfer, it is “in the interest of justice” to 

transfer this case to that District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).1

There is also good cause to extend the plaintiffs’ time to file an amended complaint—

which they had leave to do under my September 21 Order—to 30 days after the date this case is 

docketed in the District of Arizona. FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b)(1)(A).

This case shall be TRANSFERRED to the District of Arizona.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 6, 2020

William H. Orrick

United States District Judge

 

1 The plaintiffs move to change venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which contemplates transfer 

from districts in which venue was originally proper. I order transfer under § 1406(a) because 

venue does not lie in this District, and it gives the plaintiffs the result they seek.

Case 2:20-cv-02373-ROS Document 65 Filed 11/06/20 Page 2 of 2