Ajuluchuku v. JP Morgan Chase Co.

Full title: AMANDA U. AJULUCHUKU, Plaintiff(s), v. JP MORGAN CHASE CO., Defendant(s)

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Apr 3, 2006

Case Number: 06-11101 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 3, 2006)

Opinion

Case Number: 06-11101.

April 3, 2006

ORDER GRANTING VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

VICTORIA ROBERTS, District Judge

This matter was transferred to the Eastern District of Michigan from the Northern District of Texas, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a),¹ on March 1, 2006. Judge Paul D. Stickney of the Northern District of Texas found that a transfer was appropriate "for the convenience of the parties and witnesses [and] in the interest of justice," because Plaintiff's claims arise out of events which occurred in Detroit, Michigan and the persons against whom Plaintiff's allegations are based are presumably residents of Detroit. Plaintiff, however, advises that she no longer resides in Michigan. Therefore, she requests that the matter either be dismissed or transferred to the federal court where she currently resides, Charlotte, North Carolina.

1 § 1404(a) states:

For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.

Plaintiff has not made the requisite showing for a transfer to North Carolina. The threshold question in a decision to transfer an action to another district is whether the case "could have been brought" originally in the transferee district. Grand Kensington, LLC v. Burger King Corp, 81 F.Supp. 2d 834, 836 (E.D. Mich. 2000); Roth v. Bank of Commonwealth, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 96716, 1978 W.L. 1133, *1 (E.D. Mich. 1978). An action could have been brought in the transferee district if 1) the transferee court has subject matter jurisdiction; 2) venue is proper there; and 3) service of process can be made on the defendants. Roth, 1978 W.L. 1133 at 1. A transfer is precluded unless jurisdiction and venue can be established against all defendants in the transferee court. Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 343-344 (1960); Johnson Johnson v. Piccard, 282 F.2d 386, 388 (1960); Sunbelt Corp. v. Noble, Denton Assoc., Inc., 5 F.3d 28, 33 (3^rd Cir. 1993); Camasso v. Dorado Beach Hotel Corp., 689 F.Supp. 384, 386 (D. Del. 1988); Ferri v. United Aircraft Corp., 357 F.Supp. 814, 816 (D. Conn. 1973).

Plaintiff presented no evidence that venue is proper in North Carolina or that Defendant is subject to service in that jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's request for a transfer, but GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to voluntarily dismiss this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.