Garlin v. Veterans Association of Palo Alto ( 2023 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6 BRIAN B GARLIN, Case No. 2:23-cv-00632-NJK 7 Plaintiff ORDER 8 v. 9 VETERANS ASSOCIATION OF PALO ALTO, et al. 10 Defendants. 11 On April 25, 2023, Plaintiff was ordered to show cause why this case should not be 12 dismissed or transferred as being filed in an improper venue. Docket No. 4. To date, Plaintiff has 13 not responded to the order to show cause and the deadline to do so has now passed. See Docket. 14 Venue may be raised by the Court sua sponte where the defendant has not yet filed a 15 responsive pleading and the time for doing so has not run. Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 16 (9th Cir. 1986). The federal venue statute requires that a civil action be brought in (1) a judicial 17 district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state where the district 18 is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise 19 to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, 20 or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the 21 action is commenced, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. 28 22 U.S.C. § 1391(b). If a case has been filed in the wrong district, the district court in which the case 23 has been incorrectly filed has the discretion to transfer such case to any district in which it could 24 have been brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 25 Plaintiff has requested permission to proceed in forma pauperis and has filed a proposed 26 complaint. Docket Nos. 1; 1-1. The defendants named in Plaintiff’s proposed complaint appear to 27 all be residents of California. Docket No. 1-1 at 2, 4. Further, to the extent that a location can be 28 1} discerned from the proposed complaint, the events giving rise to Plaintiffs claims appear to have occurred in either Bakersfield or Palo Alto, California. /d. at 4, 6. Based on Plaintiff's proposed 3], complaint, the Court cannot determine whether the District of Nevada or another district court is 4| the proper venue for this case. 5 Moreover, Plaintiffs refusal to respond to this Court’s order has interfered with the Court’s 6|| ability to hear this case, delayed litigation, disrupted the Court’s timely management of its docket, 7|| wasted judicial resources, and threatened the integrity of the Court’s orders and the orderly 8|| administration of justice. Sanctions less drastic than dismissal are unavailable because Plaintiff has refused to comply with the order of this Court notwithstanding the warning that the case may be dismissed. 11 Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 12 Dated: June 2, 2023 13 f Kh Dy x... 14 Datel S os Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28