Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01064/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01064-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jonathan Daniel Douglas Elysee
Defendant
Juana Flores
Plaintiff
United States Postal Service
Defendant
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUANA FLORES,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01064-KES-CDB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS 

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

FOR IMPROPER VENUE

(Doc. 1) 

SEVEN-DAY DEADLINE

On September 5, 2024, Plaintiff Juana Flores (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the 

filing of a complaint asserting claims pursuant to the Federal Torts Claim Act for personal 

injuries against Defendants the United States of America, the United States Postal Service, 

Jonathan Daniel Douglas Elysee, and unnamed Doe Defendants (hereinafter collectively 

“Defendants”). (Doc. 1). Upon review of the complaint, the Court preliminary questions 

whether this action was commenced in the appropriate venue. 

In her complaint, Plaintiff pleads, “[v]enue is proper in the Central District of California

because the negligent acts giving rise to the Federal Tort Claim alleged herein occurred within 

the Central District of California. All the Plaintiffs, Defendant [Jonathan Daniel Douglas 

Elysee], medical providers, and witnesses reside within the Central District.” Id. at ¶ 4 

(emphasis added). However, in the next paragraph, Plaintiff alleges “[v]enue is proper 

Case 1:24-cv-01064-KES-CDB Document 6 Filed 10/03/24 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

2

specifically in the Eastern Division of this District because the negligent acts giving rise to the 

Federal Tort Claim alleged herein occurred within the Division of the Eastern District of 

California & all the Plaintiffs, Defendant [Jonathan Daniel Douglas Elysee], medical providers, 

and witnesses reside within the Division of the Eastern District of California.” Id. at ¶ 5. Thus, 

Plaintiff’s complaint is unclear whether she intended to file this action within the Eastern District 

of California or the Eastern Division of the Central District of California.

The Court’s confusion about where the suit properly is prosecuted is magnified based on 

other inconsistent factual allegations within the complaint. Plaintiff pleads that she was 

operating a 1997 Toyota Camry, in Kern County. Id. at ¶ 19. However, Plaintiff pleads that 

Defendant Elysee and Doe Defendants were operating a vehicle in Los Angeles County that 

caused a collision with Plaintiff on July 14, 2023. Id. at ¶¶ 20-21. The Court can only speculate 

how both allegations could be true.

The Court takes judicial notice that this is not the first instance Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s 

Counsel Jonathan Bakhsheshian were advised of similar pleading defects. See Flores v. USA, et 

al., No. 1:23-cv-01742-KES-CDB, Doc. 6.1 Despite the Court’s previous order to show cause, 

it appears Plaintiff has filed a complaint with similar defects. Again, the Court notes the aboveidentified defects could be remedied by amendment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (“[t]he court 

should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 

1130 (9th Cir. 2000).

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing, no later than 

October 10, 2024, why this action should not be transferred to a court in a proper venue.

2

1 Courts may take judicial notice of facts related to the case before it. See Amphibious 

Partners, LLC v. Redman, 534 F.3d 1357, 1361-62 (10th Cir. 2008) (district court was entitled to 

take judicial notice of its memorandum of order and judgment from previous case involving same 

parties). Also, a court may judicially notice the records and filing of other court proceedings. 

Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007); Bennett v. Medtronic, 

Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 802 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2002).

2 The filing of a First Amended Complaint will not affect Plaintiff’s ability to later file an 

amended complaint as a matter of course pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. See Ramirez v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1007 (9th Cir. 2015).

Case 1:24-cv-01064-KES-CDB Document 6 Filed 10/03/24 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

3

In the alternative, Plaintiff may satisfy her requirement to respond to this show cause 

order by filing a first amended complaint (“FAC”) to remedy the deficiencies noted above no 

later than October 10, 2024. Any such FAC supersedes the original complaint and once filed, 

the original complaint no longer serves any function in the case. Local Rule 220 requires that 

an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading.

In the alternative, Plaintiff may file a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice (see 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i)) to permit the re-filing of her action in another District where she 

believes venue is proper. Plaintiff may comply with this Order by filing a notice of voluntary 

dismissal without prejudice no later than October 10, 2024.

Any failure by Plaintiff to timely respond to this order will result in the imposition 

of sanctions, up to and including a recommendation that the action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01064-KES-CDB Document 6 Filed 10/03/24 Page 3 of 3