Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-mc-80167/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-mc-80167-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donald Keith Ellison
Plaintiff
United States of America
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DONALD KEITH ELLISON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 19-mc-80167-JST 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

TO TRANSFER VENUE; ORDER 

GRANTING IN PART STIPULATION 

TO CONTINUE HEARINGS 

Re: ECF Nos. 27, 34 

Before the Court is Defendant United States of America’s motion to transfer venue to the 

District of Puerto Rico. ECF No. 27. The government seeks transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), 

which provides that, “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a 

district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have 

been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.” However, the 

government’s motion does not address whether this action might have been brought in the District 

of Puerto Rico. See ECF No. 27. Nor does Plaintiff Donald Keith Ellison consent to transfer. 

ECF No. 30. 

The government argues on reply that this case could have been brought in the District of 

Puerto Rico under 18 U.S.C. § 981(b)(3), which provides that “[a]ny motion for the return of 

property seized under this section shall be filed in the district court in which the seizure warrant 

was issued or in the district court for the district in which the property was seized.” ECF No. 31. 

But “[i]t is inappropriate to consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.” Ass’n of 

Irritated Residents v. C & R Vanderham Dairy, 435 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1089 (E.D. Cal. 2006). 

Moreover, the government has not presented any evidence that the property at issue in this case 

was seized under § 981. 

Case 3:19-mc-80167-JST Document 37 Filed 07/24/19 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 Californi

a

Accordingly, the government’s motion to transfer venue is denied. The government may 

renew its motion, but if it does so, it must cure the deficiencies identified in this order. The Court 

expresses no view at this time on whether transfer to the District of Puerto Rico would be 

warranted under § 1404(a) if the government establishes that this case could have been brought 

there. 

The parties’ stipulation to continue the hearing on the government’s motion to transfer 

venue is denied as moot. ECF No. 34. Their stipulation to continue the hearing on Ellison’s 

motion for return of property is granted in part. Id. The hearing on that motion is continued to 

September 25, 2019. The parties shall meet and confer and file a stipulation and proposed order 

regarding the briefing schedule on Ellison’s motion. The Court will not approve any stipulation 

that proposes a reply brief deadline less than two weeks prior to the motion hearing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 24, 2019 

______________________________________ 

JON S. TIGAR 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:19-mc-80167-JST Document 37 Filed 07/24/19 Page 2 of 2