Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01198/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01198-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
International Game Fish Association
Defendant
Dennis Stumpf
Plaintiff

Document Text:

ORDER – No. 19-cv-01198-LB

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

San Francisco Division

DENNIS STUMPF,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTERNATIONAL GAME FISH 

ASSOCIATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-01198-LB

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO 

THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF 

CALIFORNIA

Re: ECF No. 1

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit complaining that the International Game Fish Association 

(“IGFA”) denied him a world record for a fish that he caught at Echo Lake in Los Angeles, 

California.1 All events took place in the Central District of California. The IGFA does not reside 

here. Venue thus is not in the Northern District of California and instead is in the Central District 

of California.

“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 

 

1 Compl. — ECF No. 1 at 7, 11, 13. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); 

pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.

Case 3:19-cv-01198-LB Document 11 Filed 04/29/19 Page 1 of 2
ORDER – No. 19-cv-01198-LB 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

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 respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

If venue is improper, the court may either dismiss the case without prejudice, or if it is in the 

“interest of justice,” transfer the case “to any district or division in which it could have been 

brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); In re Hall, Bayoutree Assocs., Ltd., 939 F.2d 802, 804 (9th Cir. 

1991). Ordinarily, the interest of justice requires transferring the case to a proper venue rather than 

dismissing the case. See Baeta v. Sonchik, 273 F.3d 1261, 1264–65 (9th Cir. 2001).

The court issued an order to cause to the plaintiff to give him an opportunity to show cause by 

April 16, 2019 why the court should not transfer his case to the Central District of California for 

lack of venue.2 He did not respond. Because venue is not in the Northern District, the court 

transfers the case to the Central District of California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 29, 2019

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

 

2 Order – ECF No. 10.

Case 3:19-cv-01198-LB Document 11 Filed 04/29/19 Page 2 of 2