Broshous v. Club Assist LLC, CV 19-8709 DSF (RAOx). (2019)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20191104936
Visitors: 7
Filed: Oct. 31, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 31, 2019
Summary: Order to Show Cause Why This Case Should Not be Transferred to the Northern District of California Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). DALE S. FISCHER , District Judge . This case was removed from Los Angeles County Superior Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. This Court is, therefore, a proper venue for the case. 28 U.S.C. 1446(a). However, this case appears to have little to no connection with this District. Plaintiff is a citizen of Texas. Defendant is based in Florida. The cas
Summary: Order to Show Cause Why This Case Should Not be Transferred to the Northern District of California Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). DALE S. FISCHER , District Judge . This case was removed from Los Angeles County Superior Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. This Court is, therefore, a proper venue for the case. 28 U.S.C. 1446(a). However, this case appears to have little to no connection with this District. Plaintiff is a citizen of Texas. Defendant is based in Florida. The case..
More
Order to Show Cause Why This Case Should Not be Transferred to the Northern District of California Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
DALE S. FISCHER, District Judge.
This case was removed from Los Angeles County Superior Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. This Court is, therefore, a proper venue for the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). However, this case appears to have little to no connection with this District.
Plaintiff is a citizen of Texas. Defendant is based in Florida. The case arises out of Plaintiff's employment in Northern California. While several locations inside and outside of California are mentioned in the complaint, the only apparent connection to this District is that Plaintiff's personnel file was possibly maintained here. See Compl. ¶¶ 27-29. But even this is unclear because the complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent for the personnel record at a location in Los Angeles but never actually received it. See id.
Given the complete lack of any apparent connection of this case to this District, the parties are ordered to show cause, in writing, no later than November 18, 2019, why this case should not be transferred to the Eastern District of California, the Northern District of California, or another appropriate District.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The complaint does not allege where Plaintiff worked other than "Northern California." The two specific California locations mentioned, Lincoln and Vacaville, are both in the Eastern District of California.
Source: Leagle
