Ulloa v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
______________________________
)
RICHARD-ENRIQUE: ULLOA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 10-187 (RWR)
)
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., )
et al., )
)
Defendants. )
______________________________)
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiff, a resident of Ulster County, New York, filed this
action challenging a foreclosure proceeding brought in state
court in Ulster County, New York concerning real property located
there and a lender located in California. The complaint does not
allege that any defendant resides or may be found in this
district, or that any events giving rise to plaintiff’s claim
occurred here, or that any property that is the subject of the
action is situated here. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (prescribing
proper venue). Plaintiff was ordered to show cause in writing
why this complaint should not be dismissed or transferred1 to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of New
York. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (“The district court of a district
1
A court may raise the possibility of transfer for improper
venue sua sponte. See Schutter v. Herskowitz, Civil Action No.
06-1846 (RMC), 2007 WL 1954416, at *6 n.3 (D.D.C. July 5, 2007).
- 2 -
in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong . . . district
shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer
such case to any district . . . in which it could have been
brought.”).
“The plaintiff . . . bears the burden of establishing that
venue is proper.” Walden v. Locke, 629 F. Supp. 2d 11, 13
(D.D.C. 2009) (quoting Varma v. Gutierrez, 421 F. Supp. 2d 110,
113 (D.D.C. 2006)). In his response to the Order to show cause,
plaintiff argues that “a substantial part of the events and
errors and omissions giving rise to the claim” took place in this
district because the defendants issued public currency and acted
“under the authority of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, . . .
which is regulated by the US Treasury Department, through the
Comptroller of the Currency, located in this district.” (Pl.’s
Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Pl.’s Reply to Order to Show Cause
¶ 15.) However, that defendants do business under a regulatory
regime overseen by the federal government has no bearing on the
location of the foreclosure proceeding that plaintiff challenges
in his complaint. That event did not take place in the District
of Columbia, but rather in the Northern District of New York,
where the property at issue is located. Therefore, this action
could have been brought in the Northern District of New York.
Because dismissing the complaint would needlessly burden the
plaintiff with refiling his complaint in the Northern District of
- 3 -
New York, the case will be transferred to that district in the
interest of justice under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Accordingly, is
it hereby
ORDERED that this case be, and hereby is, TRANSFERRED to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of New
York. All pending motions are left for decision by the
transferee court.
SIGNED this 3rd day of March, 2010.
_________/s/________________
RICHARD W. ROBERTS
United States District Judge