Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00399/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00399-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
JP Morgan Chase
Defendant
Tonya Murphy
Plaintiff
National Default Servicing
Defendant

Document Text:

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

1

 Record citations are to documents in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations

are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents.

ORDER; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

C 15-00399 LB

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

San Francisco Division

TONYA MURPHY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JP MORGAN CHASE, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. C 15-00399 LB

ORDER TO REASSIGN CASE TO A

DISTRICT JUDGE

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiffs Tonya Murphy and Samuel Smith filed this action against Defendants JP Morgan

Chase and National Default Servicing on January 28, 2015. (See Complaint, ECF No. 1.1

) Plaintiffs

assert that the court has federal question subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and

bring against Defendants claims for harassment and abuse in violation of the Fair Debt Collection

Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692d, and for violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal.

Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. (See id. at 1-4.) Plaintiffs’ claims allegedly relate to Defendants’

actions with respect to Plaintiffs’ property and home at 929 Bess Place in Stockton, California,

which is located in San Joaquin County. 

Generally, actions arising out of disputes occurring in San Joaquin County, however, are to be

maintained within the Eastern District of California, and Plaintiffs do not otherwise allege why this

Case 3:15-cv-00399-JD Document 5 Filed 02/03/15 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

ORDER; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

C 15-00399 LB

2

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

action should be maintained here, in the Northern District of California. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 120

(“All civil and criminal actions and proceedings of every nature and kind cognizable in the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of California arising in . . . San Joaquin . . . count[y]

shall be commenced in the United States District Court sitting [in] Sacramento, California, . . . .).

28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), explains that when there is “a case laying venue in the wrong division or

district[,]” the district court “shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to

any district or division in which it could have been brought.” Whether to dismiss for improper

venue, or alternatively to transfer venue to a proper court, is a matter within the sound discretion of

the district court. See King v. Russell, 963 F.2d 1301, 1304 (9th Cir.1992). Courts in this district

have found transfer to be justified where dismissal would simply promote extra expense and delay

because of a likelihood that the case will be refiled in another district. See, e.g., Rodriguez v.

PepsiCo Long Term Disability Plan, 716 F.Supp.2d 855 (N.D. Cal. 2010); Citizens for a Better

Env’t–California v. Union Oil Co. of California, 861 F.Supp. 889, 898 (N.D. Cal. 1994) aff’d, 83

F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 1996). This court believes that transfer, rather than dismissal, is appropriate

here, as Plaintiffs allege a federal claim and assert federal question subject-matter jurisdiction. 

The parties have neither consented nor declined the undersigned’s jurisdiction. For the reasons

stated above, the court ORDERS that this action be reassigned to a district judge and

RECOMMENDS that the newly assigned district court judge transfer the action to the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with the district judge within

fourteen days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); N.D.

Cal. Civ. L.R. 72-3. Failure to file an objection may waive the right to review of the issue in the

district court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2015 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00399-JD Document 5 Filed 02/03/15 Page 2 of 2