Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. JFM-09-2299.
September 3, 2009
MEMORANDUM
On August 31, 2009, plaintiff, a resident of Cumberland, Maryland, filed the above-captioned pro se action. Paper No. 1. Plaintiff's complaint concerns real property located in Washington, D.C. Plaintiff alleges that defendants defrauded him of his interest in the property. Defendant Esther D. Elder resides in North Carolina. Defendants William T. Massey and Massey-Kennedy Associates, Inc., are residents of Washington, D.C. Id.
It appears that diversity exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332; however, review of the venue statutes under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(a) and 1391(c) illustrates that venue is not proper in this jurisdiction:
A civil action wherein jurisdiction is founded only 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 is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)
Defendants are residents of North Carolina and Washington, D.C. It appears that the events complained of occurred in Washington, D.C. It does not appear that any of the defendants are Maryland residents or otherwise subject to personal jurisdiction in Maryland. Further, the events giving rise to plaintiff's complaint did not occur in Maryland. As such there is no basis for finding that the court has personal jurisdiction over defendants. Accordingly, for the convenience of the parties and in the interest of justice, this case shall be transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. A separate order follows.