Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00462/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00462-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Amber Angeline
Plaintiff
John E. Potter
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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO TRANSFER VENUE OF ACTION TO

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH RUSSONIELLO (CSBN 44332)

United States Attorney

JOANN M. SWANSON (CSBN 88143)

Chief, Civil Division

VICTORIA R. CARRADERO (CSBN 217885)

Assistant United States Attorney

 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

 San Francisco, California 94102

 Telephone: (415) 436-7181

 Facsimile: (415) 436-6748

 Email: victoria.carradero@us.doj.gov

Attorneys for Defendant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

AMBER ANGELINE )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

JOHN E. POTTER, POSTMASTER ) 

GENERAL, UNITED STATES POSTAL ) 

SERVICE )

 )

)

)

Defendants. )

)

)

___________________________________)

NO. C 09-3000-MHP

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

TO TRANSFER VENUE OF ACTION TO

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Courtroom 15, 18 floor th

Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel

Case 2:10-cv-00462-LKK -DAD Document 21 Filed 02/18/10 Page 1 of 3
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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO TRANSFER VENUE OF ACTION TO

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1

Plaintiff Amber Angeline, and Defendants John E. Potter and the United States Postal Service

(“USPS”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate as follows:

This is an action alleging employment discrimination on the basis of sex and alleged disability. 

Plaintiff alleges that the conduct of which she complains of in this lawsuit took place during her

employment with USPS in Sacramento County, which is located in the Eastern District of California. 28

U.S.C. § 84(b). Further, the majority of Plaintiff’s personnel records are located in the Eastern District

of California. Additionally, though not considered as part of Title VII’s venue provisions, Plaintiff is a

resident of the city of Elk Grove, also located in the Eastern District of California. Accordingly, venue

for this action is proper in the Eastern District of California, but not in this District. 

The parties to this action, by and through their attorneys, hereby stipulate and request of the Court

that this action be transferred to the Eastern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 

Section 1406(a) provides:

The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying in venue in 

the wrong division or district 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.

Because venue is not proper in this District and is proper in the Eastern District, the parties believe

that the interests of justice require that this action be transferred to the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of California.

In addition, the parties previously stipulated that Plaintiff would file a First Amended Complaint

by January 7, 2010 and Defendant would file a responsive pleading by February 12, 2010. The parties

have met and conferred over Plaintiff’s Complaint and First Amended Complaint, including, but not

limited to, the naming of an improper agency defendant USPS, and improper venue. Defendants

intended on filing a Motion to Dismiss based on improper venue and the improper named USPS

defendant on February 12, 2010. However, on the late afternoon of February 11, 2010, Plaintiff notified

Defendant via voicemail that her complaint should be in the Eastern District of California. In view of

the uncertainty as to when this action will be docketed and assigned to a judge in the Eastern District of

California, the parties further stipulate and request of the Court that the time for Defendant(s) to file a

Case 2:10-cv-00462-LKK -DAD Document 21 Filed 02/18/10 Page 2 of 3
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

responsive pleading be extended to 35 days after the date the action is docketed and assigned to a judge

in the Eastern District of California. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Respectfully Submitted, 

DATED: February 16, 2010 DENISE EATON MAY

_________/s/_______________

Denise Eaton May

Attorneys for Plaintiff

DATED: February 16, 2010 JOSEPH RUSSONIELLO

United States Attorney

__________/s/______________

Victoria R. Carradero

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorneys for Federal Defendants

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION IT IS SO ORDERED.

This action is hereby transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

California. Defendant shall have 35 days after the date the action is docketed and assigned to a judge in

the Eastern District of California to file a responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s complaint. 

DATED: __________________________

The Honorable Marilyn H. Patel

United States District Judge

2/17/2010

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 2:10-cv-00462-LKK -DAD Document 21 Filed 02/18/10 Page 3 of 3