Filed: May 01, 2019
Latest Update: May 01, 2019
Summary: ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE; DIRECTING PARTIES TO MEET AND CONFER; RESCHEDULING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Re: Dkt. No. 20 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. , District Judge . Plaintiff Ethan Berry brought this suit pro se, alleging that Defendants the City of Vallejo and its employees Andrew Bidou, Jason Bauer, and Kyle Wylie violated the United States Constitution and state law. See Complaint, Dkt. No. 1. Defendants moved to dismiss on April 19. See Dkt. No. 12. Pla
Summary: ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE; DIRECTING PARTIES TO MEET AND CONFER; RESCHEDULING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Re: Dkt. No. 20 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. , District Judge . Plaintiff Ethan Berry brought this suit pro se, alleging that Defendants the City of Vallejo and its employees Andrew Bidou, Jason Bauer, and Kyle Wylie violated the United States Constitution and state law. See Complaint, Dkt. No. 1. Defendants moved to dismiss on April 19. See Dkt. No. 12. Plai..
More
ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE; DIRECTING PARTIES TO MEET AND CONFER; RESCHEDULING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Re: Dkt. No. 20
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR., District Judge.
Plaintiff Ethan Berry brought this suit pro se, alleging that Defendants the City of Vallejo and its employees Andrew Bidou, Jason Bauer, and Kyle Wylie violated the United States Constitution and state law. See Complaint, Dkt. No. 1. Defendants moved to dismiss on April 19. See Dkt. No. 12. Plaintiff requested additional time to file an opposition. See Dkt. No. 20.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's administrative motion for an extension of time for which to file his opposition. The Court SETS May 24, 2019 as the deadline for Plaintiff to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss and May 31, 2019 as the deadline for Defendants to file a reply.
The Court notes that Defendants contend in their motion that venue is not proper in the Northern District of California. See Dkt. No. 12 at 4-5. The venue statute provides:
(b) Venue in General.—A civil action may be brought in—
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located;
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or
(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Plaintiff does not appear to have alleged where the Defendants reside. But Plaintiff alleges that the "unlawful acts and practices . . . occurred in the City of Vallejo, California." See Complaint ¶ 1. Vallejo is located in the Eastern District of California, not this district.1
Given the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds it likely that the case will be dismissed or transferred for improper venue. Accordingly, in his opposition brief, Plaintiff should address the basis for his allegation that venue is appropriate in the Northern District, given that the events alleged in the complaint occurred in the Eastern District. In addition, the Court DIRECTS Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants to meet and confer to discuss whether they can agree that the case should be transferred to the Eastern District.
Further, the Court RESCHEDULES the initial case management conference from May 28 to June 4, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. in Oakland, Courtroom 2, Fourth Floor. A case management statement is due by May 28.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
