(PS) Lundstrom v. Contra Costa Health Services ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARGARET LUNDSTROM, No. 2:22-cv-1398-TLN-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CONTRA COSTA HEALTH SERVICES, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, who is proceeding in pro se, commenced this action and paid the filing fee on 18 August 8, 2022. ECF No. 1. On September 29, 2022, defendant Contra Costa Health Services 19 filed two motions: a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) and a motion to change venue (ECF No. 6). 20 Defendant argued that this matter should be transferred to the Northern District of California 21 where defendant, plaintiff’s former employer, is located and where most of the events at issue this 22 action took place. ECF No. 6-1 at 2, 8. On October 14, 2022, plaintiff filed a response to the 23 motion to dismiss. ECF No. 10. In this response, plaintiff stated that she has no objection to 24 transferring venue to the Northern District of California. ECF No. 10 at 1. 25 The federal venue statute provides that a civil action “may be brought in (1) a judicial 26 district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the 27 district is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions 28 giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action 1 is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in 2 || this action, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal 3 || jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 4 In this case, the defendant is in Contra Costa County, California, and most of the events 5 || took place there. ECF No. 6-1 at 2, 8. Plaintiff does not object to changing venue to the Northern 6 || District of California as defendant requests. ECF No. 10 at 1. In the interest of justice, a federal 7 || court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 8 | 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974). Both in the interest of justice 9 || and upon the parties’ stipulation, this case should be transferred to the Northern District of 10 || California for all further proceedings. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion (ECF No. 6) is 12 || GRANTED and this matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern 13 | District of California. 14 | DATED: October 18, 2022 Atl 2 fA /, 15 ALLISON CLAIRE 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28