Greaves v. U.S.A. Cricket

Background

Kirk Greaves sued U.S.A. Cricket and Richard Done. The complaint alleged breach of contract, discriminatory and retaliatory termination, and a conspiracy to commit fraud. Greaves alleged that U.S.A. Cricket sent him a letter terminating his contract effective April 8, 2022.

The opinion states that Greaves is of African descent and resides in Houston, Texas. U.S.A. Cricket is a nonprofit organization formed in 2017 and incorporated in Colorado. Its four employees did not reside in California, and Done, its Cricket Operations Director, resided in Texas during the relevant period. Greaves was relocated to Houston on March 1, 2021. He traveled to a staff retreat in Milpitas, California, but the complaint alleged no other events in the Northern District of California.

Defendants’ Motion

U.S.A. Cricket and Done moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), 12(b)(3), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6). They argued, among other things, that venue was improper in the Northern District of California. Greaves filed an opposition and requested additional time to respond. The court granted more time for an amended opposition, but Greaves did not file another opposition.

Venue Analysis

Federal law allows a case to be filed in certain districts, including a district where a defendant resides when the statutory conditions are met, a district where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, or, in limited circumstances, a district where a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction.

The court found that venue was improper in the Northern District of California. It stated that none of the defendants resided there, no substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred there, and Greaves did not allege that no other district was available. The court identified Colorado, where U.S.A. Cricket was incorporated, and the Northern or Southern Districts of Texas as possible venues.

Disposition

Rather than dismissing the case for improper venue, the court found that transfer was in the interest of justice and transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The court did not decide the pending motion to dismiss. It stated that the receiving court could resolve that motion or require additional briefing.