Source: http://id.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20171205_0000603.DID.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-09-19 21:40:49
Document Index: 112137628

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1391', 'art:\n28', '§ 1391', '§ 1391', '§ 1391', '§ 1391', '§ 1391']

FindACase™ | Newell v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. of Idaho
Newell v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. of Idaho
FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF IDAHO, an Idaho corporation; IDAHO FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, INC., an Idaho corporation; and, FARM BUREAU LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Iowa company, Defendant.
Pending before the Court is Defendant Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Idaho's Motion to Change Venue. Dkt. 22. Having reviewed the record and briefs, the Court finds that the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented. Accordingly, in the interest of avoiding further delay, and because the Court finds that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument, the Court will decide the motion without oral argument. Dist. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(2)(ii). For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the Motion to Change Venue.
Also pending is Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time to Amend Complaint. Dkt. 34. This motion is unopposed; therefore, the Court will GRANT the Motion to Extend Time.
On June 28, 2017, Plaintiff Mike Newell filed suit in the State of Idaho, Fourth Judicial District, Ada County. In his Complaint, Newell alleges four causes of actions against defendants, including a claim for religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Also on June 28, 2017, Defendant Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Idaho (“Farm Bureau”) filed a notice to remove the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. Pursuant to Idaho Local District Civil Rule 3.1, the Clerk of the Court assigned the case to the Southern Division of the District of Idaho because the case was removed from Ada County. On September 27, 2017, Farm Bureau filed the instant Motion to Change Venue seeking to have venue changed from the Southern Division (Boise) to the Eastern Division (Pocatello). Plaintiff filed an opposition. The other named Defendants do not oppose the Motion.
A. 28 U.S.C. § 1391
The general venue statute provides in relevant part:
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). By its terms, § 1391 refers to districts and not divisions. See Crumrine v. NEG Micon USA, Inc., 104 F.Supp.2d 1123, 1125-26 (N. D. Iowa 2000) (explaining that, because § 1391(a) establishes proper venue in terms of districts rather than divisions, venue requirements of § 1391(a) are satisfied if action is filed in proper district). Obviously, the District of Idaho was the proper district within which to file the Complaint. Therefore, the requirements of § 1391(a) have been met.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The District of Idaho is comprised of four divisions, each of which covers certain specified counties. D. Idaho L. Civ. R. 3.1. The Local Rules do not provide a procedure for filing a case within a particular division. Rather, Rule 3.1 states that &ldquo;[c]ases that have venue in one of the above divisions will be assigned by the Clerk upon the filing of the Complaint or petition to the appropriate division, unless otherwise ordered by the presiding judge.&rdquo; Id. It is the policy of the Court that the Clerk of the Court assign a case to the division in which the defendant resides, which is determined from the address provided by the plaintiff. In other words, had this case been filed in federal court at the outset it would have been assigned to the Eastern Division. When a case is removed from state court to federal court, however, it is the policy of the Court to file the action based upon ...