Opinion
2:24-cv-00013 DJC AC
01-04-2024
ORDER
ALLISON CLAIRE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, a citizen of Louisiana who is proceeding in pro se, has paid the filing fee and filed a complaint naming multiple defendants. ECF No. 2. Plaintiff does not know the address of several defendants, but names at least two defendants, YouTube and Alphabet Inc., which are located in San Mateo County and Santa Clara County, respectively. Plaintiff also names Google LLC, but identifies its location as that of a separate entity which she identifies as its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, located Sacramento County. ECF No. 1 at 7. Plaintiff's complaint concerns a video uploaded to YouTube and plaintiff's interactions with the companies.
The federal venue statute provides that a civil action “may be brought in (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this action, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
In this case, plaintiff is a citizen of Louisiana and the named defendants are located in counties that fall under the jurisdiction of the United States Court for the Northern District of California. None of the events in this case relate to the Eastern District of California. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.