Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-00886/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-00886-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jason Bauer
Defendant
Ethan Berry
Plaintiff
Andrew Bidou
Defendant
City of Vallejo
Defendant
Kyle Wylie
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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ETHAN BERRY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF VALLEJO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-00886-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

EXTEND DEADLINE; DIRECTING 

PARTIES TO MEET AND CONFER; 

RESCHEDULING CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Re: Dkt. No. 20

Plaintiff Ethan Berry brought this suit pro se, alleging that Defendants the City of Vallejo 

and its employees Andrew Bidou, Jason Bauer, and Kyle Wylie violated the United States 

Constitution and state law. See Complaint, Dkt. No. 1. Defendants moved to dismiss on April 19. 

See Dkt. No. 12. Plaintiff requested additional time to file an opposition. See Dkt. No. 20.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s administrative motion for an extension of time for which 

to file his opposition. The Court SETS May 24, 2019 as the deadline for Plaintiff to file an 

opposition to the motion to dismiss and May 31, 2019 as the deadline for Defendants to file a 

reply.

The Court notes that Defendants contend in their motion that venue is not proper in the

Northern District of California. See Dkt. No. 12 at 4–5. The venue statute provides:

(b) Venue in General.—A civil action may be brought 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 

Case 4:19-cv-00886-HSG Document 21 Filed 05/01/19 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 California

respect to such action. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Plaintiff does not appear to have alleged where the Defendants reside. 

But Plaintiff alleges that the “unlawful acts and practices . . . occurred in the City of Vallejo, 

California.” See Complaint ¶ 1. Vallejo is located in the Eastern District of California, not this 

district.1

Given the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds it likely that the case will be 

dismissed or transferred for improper venue. Accordingly, in his opposition brief, Plaintiff should 

address the basis for his allegation that venue is appropriate in the Northern District, given that the 

events alleged in the complaint occurred in the Eastern District. In addition, the Court DIRECTS 

Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants to meet and confer to discuss whether they can agree that the 

case should be transferred to the Eastern District.

Further, the Court RESCHEDULES the initial case management conference from May 28

to June 4, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. in Oakland, Courtroom 2, Fourth Floor. A case management 

statement is due by May 28.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

 

1

Jurisdiction maps appear online at http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/about-thefederal-court/ for the Eastern District and at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/jurisdictionmap for 

the Northern District.

5/1/2019

Case 4:19-cv-00886-HSG Document 21 Filed 05/01/19 Page 2 of 2