Lee v. Bank of America, N.A.
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:21-cv-07231
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Lee v. Bank of America, Judge Corley denied Lee’s motion to transfer the removed case because venue was proper in California.
Howard Lee’s lawsuit remains in the Northern District of California; the order also affects Bank of America, N.A. and Bank of America Corporation as defendants.
What happened
Lee v. Bank of America, N.A. concerns Howard Lee’s request to move his lawsuit from the Northern District of California to the Middle District of Florida. Lee, who was representing himself, sued Bank of America, N.A. and Bank of America Corporation over alleged losses from an investment in property in Nicaragua.
The court explained that because the defendants removed the case from San Francisco Superior Court, venue was proper in the federal district covering that court. The court also said that, even under the law Lee relied on, important events occurred in California, including the alleged investment discussions at Bank of America’s Cupertino office.
Judge Corley denied Lee’s motion to change venue to Florida. The order did not decide whether Lee’s negligence, fraud, fiduciary-duty, contract, or misrepresentation claims were valid.
The detailed version
- Lee v. Bank of America, N.A. · No. 3:21-cv-07231
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Feb. 18, 2022
Background
Howard Lee sued Bank of America, N.A. and Bank of America Corporation in San Francisco Superior Court. He alleged six claims arising from a $1,150,000 investment in 14 Seaside Marina lots in Nicaragua: negligent hiring, retention, and supervision; fraud by omission; breach of fiduciary duty; breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; breach of contract; and negligent misrepresentation.
According to the complaint, Lee invested through Yessica Cai, who was a Bank of America vice president of investment at the Cupertino branch and acted as Lee’s financial advisor, banker, and concierge. Lee alleged that Cai suggested the investment in her official Bank of America role, received his funds, and did not ensure that he received title to the lots. Lee later learned that he did not own the properties.
The defendants removed the case to the Northern District of California based on diversity jurisdiction. Lee then moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) to transfer the case to the Middle District of Florida. He was representing himself when he filed the motion. In a later filing, he also asked the court to stay the action so that he could refile in Florida. The order states that it disposes of Docket Nos. 19 and 22.
Court’s Analysis
The court denied the venue-transfer motion because the Northern District of California was a proper venue. It held that 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), rather than § 1406(a), governed the venue question because the defendants had removed the case from state court. Under § 1441(a), a removed action is properly venued in the federal district where the state action was pending. Because Lee filed the case in San Francisco Superior Court, venue was proper in the Northern District of California.
The court added that the result would be the same even if § 1406(a) applied. That statute permits transfer when venue is improper. Federal venue law also permits a case to proceed where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred. The court relied on Lee’s allegation that much of the relevant activity occurred in California, including Cai’s work as Lee’s financial advisor in the San Francisco Bay Area and her alleged suggestion of the investment at Bank of America’s Cupertino office.
Disposition
Judge Corley denied Lee’s motion to change venue to the Middle District of Florida. The opinion does not decide the merits of Lee’s underlying claims or the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court also directed Lee to resources for people proceeding without counsel.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.