Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled June 26, 2023

Hume v. Poskaitis

Judge
Sallie Kim
Docket
3:23-cv-03176
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Hume v. Poskaitis, Judge Oberto transferred the case to the Northern District of California because the disputed property was there.

Who this affects

The transfer affects Edward D. Hume and defendants Margaret Poskaitis, Christina Moody, and Janet E. Hume by moving the case from the Eastern District of California to the Northern District of California.

What happened

Edward D. Hume, representing himself, sued Margaret Poskaitis, Christina Moody, and Janet E. Hume. He also applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. The complaint was filed in the Eastern District of California.

The court said the federal venue rules required the case to be filed in the Northern District of California because the disputed property was in San Mateo County. The defendants’ residences did not establish the Eastern District as the proper venue.

Judge Sheila K. Oberto ordered the case transferred to the Northern District of California under the federal transfer statute. The order addressed only where the case should proceed, not the underlying dispute.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Hume v. Poskaitis · No. 3:23-cv-03176
Judge
Sallie Kim
Date
June 26, 2023

Background

Edward D. Hume filed a complaint against Margaret Poskaitis, Christina Moody, and Janet E. Hume. The opinion states that Hume was representing himself and filed an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

Venue Analysis

The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), the federal venue statute. That statute generally permits a civil case to be filed where the defendants reside, where a substantial part of the events or omissions occurred or the relevant property is located, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction.

The court stated that two defendants resided in Sonora, California, Hume resided in Florida, and one defendant resided in Virginia. It also stated that the property involved in the dispute was located in San Mateo County, which is in the Northern District of California. Based on those facts, the court concluded that the suit should have been filed in the Northern District of California.

Disposition

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a federal court may transfer a case filed in the wrong district when doing so serves the interests of justice. The court ordered that the matter be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The order did not decide the merits of Hume’s claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.