Barth v. Mabry Carlton Ranch, Inc
- Nathanael Cousins
- 5:20-cv-09288
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Barth v. Mabry Carlton Ranch, Inc.: Judge Davila denied sealing and dismissed the action for improper venue.
John S Barth and the defendants named in his complaint were affected; the action was dismissed in the Northern District of California for improper venue.
What happened
In Barth v. Mabry Carlton Ranch, Inc., John S Barth, representing himself, asked to seal his complaint and exhibits. He said sealing was required by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Internal Revenue Service, and would prevent evidence destruction or asset transfers.
The court denied the sealing request because Barth had not shown that the materials could be sealed under the court’s local rules or the False Claims Act. It also dismissed the action for improper venue because the claims concerned property and conduct in Florida. The court declined to transfer the case because Barth did not want to pursue it in the Middle District of Florida.
Judge Edward J. Davila signed the order on December 23, 2020, and directed the Clerk to close the file.
The detailed version
- Barth v. Mabry Carlton Ranch, Inc · No. 5:20-cv-09288
- Nathanael Cousins
- Dec. 23, 2020
Background
John S Barth, proceeding without a lawyer, submitted a motion to seal a 68-page complaint and 56 pages of exhibits. The complaint asserted racketeering claims against numerous defendants, including public officials. Barth argued that sealing was required by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Internal Revenue Service and was necessary to prevent defendants from destroying evidence or moving assets out of the country. He also argued that sealing was appropriate because some claims involved alleged violations of the False Claims Act. If sealing was denied, he requested a refund of his filing fee and return of his documents.
Sealing ruling
The court denied the motion to seal. It found that Barth had not established that the complaint and exhibits were eligible for sealing under the local rules or the False Claims Act.
Venue ruling
The court also found that venue—the proper federal district for the lawsuit—was improper in the Northern District of California. The court stated that Barth’s claims related to property in Florida and conduct that occurred in Florida, making venue improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
Barth argued that venue was proper under 18 U.S.C. § 1965(a) because defendants allegedly resided, were found, had agents, or transacted affairs in California. He also argued that the alleged conduct had significant effects in California. The court found that Barth had not shown that defendants had any of those connections to California and had not identified a local rule supporting venue there. The court further found speculative Barth’s estimate that California residents would bear a share of alleged losses based on California’s percentage of the national population.
Disposition
The court dismissed the action for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), rather than transferring it to the Middle District of Florida, because Barth did not wish to pursue his claims there. The Clerk was directed to close the file. The order was signed by Judge Edward J. Davila.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.