Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06371/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06371-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Silver Club
Defendant
Jerry Thompson
Plaintiff

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY THOMPSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SILVER CLUB, a Nevada corporation,

Defendant /

No. C-07-6371 MMC

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO

SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD

NOT BE DISMISSED FOR IMPROPER

VENUE 

Before the Court is plaintiff’s complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis,

each filed December 17, 2007. In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendant is a

“Nevada corporation” that owns and operates a hotel located in Sparks, Nevada, (see

Complaint at 1:16-17), that plaintiff uses a wheelchair, (see id. at 1:24-25), and that the

wheelchair-accessible rooms at defendant’s hotel have only one bed, (see id. at 2:2-3). 

Plaintiff alleges he “must choose between being able to bathe safely and having a separate

bed for his traveling companion.” (See id. at 2:5-6.) 

“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

Case 3:07-cv-06371-MMC Document 4 Filed 12/27/07 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

1

 Pending resolution of the question of venue, plaintiff’s application to proceed in

forma pauperis will remain under submission.

2

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). 

Plaintiff’s complaint includes a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act;

jurisdiction thus is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship. Plaintiff does not allege

that defendant resides in or may be found in the Northern District of California. Nor does

plaintiff allege that any of the events giving rise to his claim occurred therein; indeed, based

on the information in the complaint, all of the events giving rise to plaintiff’s claim occurred

in Nevada. Consequently, it would appear that venue is not proper in this district. See 28

U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), “[t]he district court of a district in which is filed a case

laying 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.”

Accordingly, plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to show cause, no later than January 25,

2008, and in writing not to exceed five pages, why the instant action should not be

dismissed, without prejudice, for improper venue.1 See Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F. 2d 1486,

1488 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding district court has “authority to raise the issue of defective

venue on its own motion).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 27, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-06371-MMC Document 4 Filed 12/27/07 Page 2 of 2