From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Champion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Oct 3, 2012
No. CR-96-0308 PHX RCB (D. Ariz. Oct. 3, 2012)

Opinion

No. CR-96-0308 PHX RCB

10-03-2012

United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Jo Ann Champion (Pink), Defendant.


ORDER

Currently pending before the court are two nearly identical "Request[s] to Transfer Proceeding to Federal Judicial District Court, San Diego, California" brought by defendant Jo Ann Champion Pink. (Docs. 27 and 30). Previously, this court deemed those requests to be motions brought pursuant to LRCiv 7.2, and allowed for the filing of a response and reply, if the parties so desired. Ord. (Doc. 32). As allowed, plaintiff, the United States of America, timely filed its response in opposition (Doc. 37). The time for defendant to file her reply, if any, has passed. Consequently, defendant's motions are ripe for resolution.

While defendants' motions to transfer were pending, the United States filed a motion to quash writ of continuing garnishment as to garnishee Independent Financial Group, LLC, and as to garnishee Northwestern Mutual. The reason for both motions was identical. "[A]ll accounts were closed and no funds [we]re available[] from either garnishee. Mot. (Doc. 33) at 1:20-21; and Mot. (Doc. 34) at 1:20-21. The court granted both motions. Ords. (Docs. 35 and 36). Because the foregoing renders defendant's motions to transfer moot, the court agrees with the United States that that is a sufficient basis for denying such motions.

The United States identifies a second, valid reason for denying defendant's motions. The United States accurately points out that defendant cites to no procedural rule or statutory authority for defendant's requests to transfer. Moreover, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the change of venue statute does not apply here, as the United States also points out. In relevant part, that statute provides that "in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district . . . where it might have been brought or to any district . . . to which all parties have consented. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (emphasis added. Defendant cannot satisfy either prong. The criminal case from which these garnishment proceedings arose could not have originally been brought in the federal district court in San Diego, California; and defendant does not argue to the contrary. Further, the United States expressly "does not consent to such a transfer[.]" Resp. (Doc. 37) at 2:9. For both of these reasons, the court hereby ORDERS that:

(1) Defendant Jo Ann Champion (Pink)'s "Request to Transfer Preceeding [sic] to Federal Judicial District San Diego, California" (Doc. 27) is DENIED; and

(2) Defendant Jo Ann Champion (Pink)'s "Request to Transfer Proceeding to Federal Judicial District San Diego, California" (Doc. 30) is DENIED.

__________________

Robert C. Broomfield

Senior United States District Judge
Copies to counsel of record


Summaries of

United States v. Champion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Oct 3, 2012
No. CR-96-0308 PHX RCB (D. Ariz. Oct. 3, 2012)
Case details for

United States v. Champion

Case Details

Full title:United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Jo Ann Champion (Pink), Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Date published: Oct 3, 2012

Citations

No. CR-96-0308 PHX RCB (D. Ariz. Oct. 3, 2012)