Opinion
NO. CV 20-9821 JAK (AGRx)
11-05-2020
PARAMOUNT PROPERTY ADVISORS, INC., Plaintiff, v. MAXINE J. SHERARD, et al., Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
On October 23, 2020, Ms. Sherard filed a Notice of Removal and a Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.
For the reasons discussed below, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause, on or before November 23 , 2020 , why this Court should not recommend denial of Plaintiff's request to proceed without prepayment of filing fees based on improper venue.
I.
NOTICE OF REMOVAL
Ms. Sherard filed a Notice of Removal of an unlawful detainer action filed in San Diego County Superior Court by Paramount Property Advisors, Inc.
Ms. Sherard states that she resides in San Diego, California. (Dkt. No. 1 at 1, 32, 148.) The premises that is the subject of the unlawful detainer action is located in San Diego and was transferred by grant deed to Paramount Property Advisors at the same address. (Id. at 32, 37.) The unlawful detainer action was filed in San Diego County Superior Court. (Id. at 31.)
II.
VENUE
"A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (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) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
All parties appear to be in San Diego, California. The property that is the subject of the underlying the unlawful detainer action is in San Diego, California, and all of the events and omissions underlying the unlawful detainer action occurred there. San Diego is in the Southern District of California. 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). None of the parties are located in the Central District of California. The property is not located in this district, and none of the events or omissions are alleged to have occurred here.
Accordingly, Plaintiff must explain why his request to proceed without prepayment of fees in this district should not be denied. See Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986) ("the district court ha[s] the authority to raise the issue of defective venue on its own motion"); Alexandria v. United States, 2007 WL 2947461, *1 (S.D. Cal. 2007) (dismissing complaint for lack of venue at the in forma pauperis stage); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) ("The district court of a district 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.").
III.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, on or before November 23, 2020 , Plaintiff shall show cause, if there be any, why this Court should not deny Plaintiff's request to proceed without prepayment of fees.
Plaintiff is also advised that if she fails to timely respond to this Order to Show Cause , Plaintiff's request to proceed without prepayment of fees will be denied without prejudice. DATED: November 5, 2020
/s/_________
ALICIA G. ROSENBERG
United States Magistrate Judge