Stiles v. Kahn
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:24-cv-00558
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
Stiles v. Casanova: Judge Delaney transferred the action to the Northern District of California for improper venue without deciding the claims.
The transfer affected Stiles, the other plaintiffs listed in the complaint, and the defendants. The case was moved from the Eastern District of California to the Northern District of California, and the Eastern District case was closed.
What happened
In Stiles v. Casanova, Steven Foster Stiles filed a civil complaint, and a motion seeking a temporary restraining order was also filed. Although the complaint listed multiple plaintiffs, only Stiles signed it, and the court noted that a non-lawyer cannot represent the other plaintiffs.
The court concluded that venue was improper in the Eastern District of California. The defendants were located in California and Oregon, and the alleged events and property involved the Northern District of California and the District of Oregon. The court therefore transferred the action to the Northern District of California under the federal venue statute and closed the Eastern District case.
Judge Carolyn K. Delaney said the transfer did not address the merits of the complaint. The court also did not decide a pending motion challenging personal jurisdiction over some defendants.
The detailed version
- Stiles v. Kahn · No. 3:24-cv-00558
- Richard Seeborg
- Jan. 26, 2024
Background
A plaintiff proceeding without a lawyer initiated the action by filing a civil complaint on November 3, 2023. The complaint listed multiple plaintiffs, but only Steven Foster Stiles signed it. The court stated that, as a non-lawyer, Stiles could not represent the other plaintiffs. Stiles later filed a motion for a temporary restraining order.
Venue analysis
The court determined that venue did not lie in the Eastern District of California. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), a civil action may generally be filed where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the relevant events or omissions occurred, or, in some circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction.
The defendants were located in California and Oregon, so all defendants did not reside in California. The complaint’s allegations involved events mostly within the District of Oregon and the Northern District of California, and they did not establish that a substantial part of the relevant events occurred in the Eastern District of California. The court also observed that the complaint and temporary-restraining-order motion concerned real and personal property located in the Northern District of California.
Disposition
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a court may dismiss a case filed in the wrong venue or, when it is in the interest of justice, transfer it to a district where the case could have been brought. The court transferred this action to the Northern District of California because a substantial part of the property involved in the action was located there. The Clerk of Court was ordered to close the Eastern District of California case, and the plaintiff was instructed to direct future filings and inquiries to the Northern District of California.
The court expressly stated that it was expressing no opinion about the merits of the complaint. It also did not decide the pending motion asserting that personal jurisdiction over defendants Amity Girt and Law Office of Josh Lamborn, P.C., was lacking in a California judicial district.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.