(PC) Ento v. SCITA Vocational Institute ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTIAN DAVID ENTO, Case No.: 1:19-cv-01293 JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA 13 v. 14 SCITA VOCATIONAL INSTITUTE et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity 18 jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all 19 defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located, (2) a judicial district in which 20 a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part 21 of the property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an 22 action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any 23 defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1391(b). 25 In this case, none of the defendants reside in this district. The claim arose in the State of 26 Nebraska. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the United States District Court 27 for the District of Nebraska. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint 28 filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 1 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974). 2 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that this matter be transferred to the United States 3 District Court for the District of Nebraska. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: September 17, 2019 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28