Ard v. Boyd
- Laurel Beeler
- 3:22-cv-03764
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Ard v. Boyd, Judge Beeler ordered Marlin Ard to explain why his case should not move to Oregon because California may be the wrong venue.
Marlin Ard and the defendants were affected by the court’s preliminary finding that venue in the Northern District of California might be improper and by the requirement that Ard respond to the possible transfer or choose one of the stated alternatives.
What happened
Ard v. Boyd concerns Marlin Ard’s lawsuit against Oregon-based defendants over their alleged biased handling of an Oregon state-court case in which he represented the plaintiff. The Oregon Supreme Court later suspended Ard from practicing law for one year, and Ard had previously sued some defendants about the same events in a related federal case in Oregon.
The court questioned whether the Northern District of California was the proper place for the lawsuit. It said the parties were Oregon residents, the relevant events appeared to have occurred in Oregon, and Ard’s allegations that the District of Oregon was prejudiced did not establish a proper basis for keeping the case in California.
Judge Laurel Beeler ordered Ard to explain in writing, by September 16, 2022, why the case should not be transferred to the District of Oregon. Alternatively, Ard could state that he did not oppose transfer or voluntarily dismiss the case without prejudice. The order did not itself transfer or dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Ard v. Boyd · No. 3:22-cv-03764
- Laurel Beeler
- Sept. 2, 2022
Background
Marlin Ard, described in the opinion as an Oregon-based attorney, sued Hilary Boyd and other defendants over their allegedly biased handling of an Oregon state-court case in which Ard represented the plaintiff. The Oregon Supreme Court suspended Ard from practicing law for one year, effective February 28, 2022; the opinion says that the Oregon Supreme Court justices are defendants in this case. Ard had sued some of the defendants in a prior related proceeding in the District of Oregon concerning the same events. In this case, he also alleged prejudice by the District of Oregon and argued that this made venue proper in the Northern District of California.
Venue analysis
Venue is the legally proper federal court location for a case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), a civil case may generally be filed where all defendants reside in the same state, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, if neither applies, where a defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction for the dispute.
The opinion said it did not appear that venue was proper in the Northern District of California. The court stated that all parties were residents of Oregon, that the relevant events appeared to have occurred in Oregon, and that Ard’s allegations of prejudice in the District of Oregon did not create venue in the Northern District of California. The court noted that if venue is improper, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) permits either dismissal without prejudice or transfer, in the interest of justice, to a district where the case could have been brought. It also identified factors relevant to transfer, including the plaintiff’s forum choice, convenience, access to evidence, familiarity with the applicable law, local interest, and court congestion.
Order
The court ordered Ard to show cause—that is, to explain—why the case should not be transferred to the District of Oregon for lack of proper venue. Ard had to respond in writing, in no more than five pages, by September 16, 2022. The order also allowed him by that date to file a statement of non-opposition to transfer or a one-page notice voluntarily dismissing the case without prejudice. Judge Laurel Beeler did not order a transfer or dismissal in this order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.