FLETCHER v. BAGHRI HOTELS INC
- Joseph Spero
- 3:23-cv-03411
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Fletcher v. Baghri Hotels—Judge Padin transferred the case to California because venue was improper in New Jersey.
Karen Fletcher and Howard Herships must litigate the action, including the unresolved fee request and initial complaint screening, in the Northern District of California rather than the District of New Jersey. The defendants are affected by the transfer of the case.
What happened
In Fletcher v. Baghri Hotels, Karen Fletcher and Howard Herships sued Baghri Hotels, Inc., Sunita Kapoor, and Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc. They represented themselves and requested permission to proceed without paying filing fees. The case included federal and California-law claims.
The court reviewed the complaint as required during its initial screening. It decided that New Jersey was not the proper place for the case because Baghri Hotels and Kapoor were alleged to reside in California, and the events described in the complaint occurred at a hotel facility in Rocklin, California. The court found that the Northern District of California was a proper venue.
Judge Padin transferred the action to the Northern District of California under the federal venue-transfer statute and ordered the New Jersey clerk to close the case there. The court did not decide the plaintiffs’ fee request or conduct the full complaint screening on the merits.
The detailed version
- FLETCHER v. BAGHRI HOTELS INC · No. 3:23-cv-03411
- Joseph Spero
- July 6, 2023
Background
Karen Fletcher and Howard Herships filed the action against Baghri Hotels, Inc., Sunita Kapoor, and Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc. The plaintiffs appeared without lawyers and asked to proceed without paying filing fees. Their complaint asserted federal and California-based claims.
The action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court had to screen the complaint because of the plaintiffs’ request to proceed without paying filing fees. Before conducting that screening, the court examined whether venue was proper in New Jersey.
Venue analysis
Federal law provides three relevant bases for venue. Venue may be proper where all defendants reside, where a substantial part of the events or omissions occurred, or—if no other district qualifies—where any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction for the action.
The court concluded that the first basis did not apply because Baghri Hotels and Sunita Kapoor were alleged to reside in California, not New Jersey. The court noted that Wyndham Hotels & Resorts was alleged to be a New Jersey resident, but the statute requires all defendants to reside in the state where the district is located for that basis to apply.
The court also concluded that the second basis supported venue in the Northern District of California. It stated that a substantial part, if not all, of the events giving rise to the complaint occurred at the Wyndham-branded hotel or Days Inn facility at 4515 Granite Drive, Rocklin, California. Because the action could be brought in California under this provision, the third venue basis did not apply.
Disposition
The court explained that, when venue is improper, it may dismiss the case or transfer it in the interest of justice under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). It determined that transfer was preferable to dismissal because the Northern District of California was a proper alternative venue.
Judge Evelyn Padin ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the Northern District of California under Section 1406(a) and to mark the New Jersey action closed. The order did not decide the plaintiffs’ request to proceed without paying filing fees or conduct the full merits screening of the complaint.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.