Kramer v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Background

Audrey E. Kramer and her husband previously sued JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada concerning Chase’s foreclosure on real property in Nevada. Kramer alleged that Chase and Kent F. Larsen, who represented Chase in that earlier case, falsified an “Assignment of Deed of Trust” and filed it in the Nevada action. The Nevada court dismissed that case with prejudice and entered judgment for Chase. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, and the opinion states that an appeal from a later order denying Kramer’s request for relief from that judgment appeared to remain pending.

Kramer then filed this action against Chase, Larsen, and Smith Larsen & Wixom. She asserted an independent action for relief from the earlier judgment, claims based on extrinsic or intrinsic fraud, and a claim for damages. Her primary requested relief was to vacate the May 17, 2018 judgment.

Motions

Chase moved to dismiss, primarily arguing that venue was improper and alternatively arguing that Kramer failed to state a claim. Larsen and Smith Larsen & Wixom moved to transfer the case to the District of Nevada or, alternatively, to dismiss for improper personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

Venue

The court concluded that venue in the Northern District of California was improper. Kramer alleged that Larsen resided and conducted business in Nevada, so the court found that venue might not be available under the provision allowing a case where all defendants reside in the state. The court also found no basis to conclude that a substantial part of the events occurred in California. Instead, because the allegedly falsified assignment was filed in Nevada and was central to Kramer’s claims, the court found that a substantial part of the claims arose there.

Transfer and disposition

Under the federal venue-transfer statute, a court may transfer a case filed in the wrong district when doing so serves the interests of justice. The court determined that transfer to Nevada would promote judicial efficiency and allow possible coordination with the earlier Nevada action while the related Ninth Circuit appeal was pending.

The court’s order states that it “GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART” both motions. It ordered the action immediately transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada and, because of the transfer, declined to reach the other motions. The order did not specify in the conclusion which particular portions of each motion were granted or denied.