Lombard v. Baker
- Jeffrey White
- 4:22-cv-02088
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Lombard v. Baker, Judge White transferred the trust-and-estate case to Alabama because venue was improper in California.
The order affects Wilton Irvon Lombard, the defendants, and the location where the case will proceed; it transfers the action from the Northern District of California to the Middle District of Alabama.
What happened
Lombard v. Baker concerns a trust and estate dispute between Wilton Lombard and his sister and brother-in-law. The defendants argued that the Northern District of California was the wrong court because they lived in Alabama and important events occurred there.
The court agreed that venue was improper in California. It granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss or transfer and transferred the case to the Middle District of Alabama instead of dismissing it. The court also denied the plaintiff’s request to transfer the case back to the Northern District of Texas.
Judge Jeffrey White issued the order on May 31, 2022. The ruling addressed where the case could be heard, not the underlying trust or estate dispute.
The detailed version
- Lombard v. Baker · No. 4:22-cv-02088
- Jeffrey White
- May 31, 2022
Background
Wilton Irvon Lombard brought a trust and estate dispute against Darlene Marie Lombard Baker, Kevin Baker, and other defendants. He initially filed the action in the Northern District of Texas. A magistrate judge there determined that venue was improper and transferred the case to the Northern District of California. The defendants then moved to dismiss or, alternatively, transfer the case because of improper venue.
Venue analysis
The defendants’ motion relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3), which permits a party to challenge improper venue. The court explained that the plaintiff had the burden of showing that venue was proper in the Northern District of California.
The court found venue improper under the first two relevant provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). First, although the complaint alleged that the defendants resided in Alamo, California, the defendants submitted evidence that they had been domiciled in Tallassee, Alabama, since December 2020. The plaintiff did not dispute that they now resided in Alabama. Second, the court found that the complaint and motion papers did not establish that a substantial part of the events occurred in California. Instead, the court found that relevant events, including the creation and filing of the trust, occurred in or around Montgomery, Alabama.
The court also determined that Alabama was a proper venue because the defendants resided there and a substantial part of the alleged events occurred there. Because a proper venue existed in the Middle District of Alabama, the court found that the alternative venue provision discussed in the opinion did not apply.
Disposition
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a court may dismiss a case filed in an improper venue or transfer it to a proper district when transfer serves the interests of justice. The court concluded that the interests of justice favored transfer rather than dismissal. It therefore granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer, and transferred the action to the Middle District of Alabama. The court denied the plaintiff’s request to transfer the action back to the Northern District of Texas because no defendant resided there and no significant events occurred there. Judge Jeffrey White directed the Clerk to transfer the case file.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.