Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00523/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00523-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Wally S. Ali
Plaintiff
Crowne Plaza San Francisco Airport Hotel
Defendant
RIM Hospitality LLC
Defendant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WALLY S. ALI,

Plaintiff,

v.

RIM HOSPITALITY LLC CROWNE 

PLAZA SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT 

HOTEL, et al.,

Defendant.

1:16-cv-00523-LJO-BAM

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Wally S. Ali (“Plaintiff”) has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

Plaintiff is a resident of California and alleges that Defendant Rim Hospitality LLC is a California 

Corporation operating the Crowne Plaza Hotel San Francisco. 

The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity 

jurisdiction, be brought only 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 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 

Case 1:16-cv-00523-LJO-BAM Document 3 Filed 04/19/16 Page 1 of 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

2

1391(b).

In this case, there is no indication Defendant Rim Hospitality LLC has sufficient contacts 

to be deemed a resident of this judicial district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(d) (corporation deemed to 

reside in any district in state within which its contacts would be sufficient to subject it to personal 

jurisdiction if that district were a separate state). However, according to the complaint, the claims

at issue arose at the Crowne Plaza San Francisco Airport Hotel, which is located in the Northern 

District of California. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the United States 

District Court for the Northern District of California. In the interest of justice, a federal court 

may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. §

1406(a); Ravelo Monegro v. Rosa, 211 F.3d 509, 512 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California.

By this order, this Court does not rule on Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis and request for service, without prepayment of costs, by the United States Marshal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 18, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00523-LJO-BAM Document 3 Filed 04/19/16 Page 2 of 2