Lam v. Hawaiian Gardens Casino, 2:19-cv-00452-MMD-BNW. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20190508e63
Visitors: 17
Filed: May 07, 2019
Latest Update: May 07, 2019
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , District Judge . Pro se Plaintiffs Hang Ngoc Lam and Samuel Yasuo Takushi, citizens of Nevada, sued Defendant Hawaiian Gardens Casino, a California corporation with its principal place of business in California, for allegedly failing to pay out the proper amount of a jackpot Plaintiffs won while gambling at Defendant's casino. (ECF No. 1; see also ECF No. 6 at 7.) Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintif
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , District Judge . Pro se Plaintiffs Hang Ngoc Lam and Samuel Yasuo Takushi, citizens of Nevada, sued Defendant Hawaiian Gardens Casino, a California corporation with its principal place of business in California, for allegedly failing to pay out the proper amount of a jackpot Plaintiffs won while gambling at Defendant's casino. (ECF No. 1; see also ECF No. 6 at 7.) Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff..
More
ORDER
MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.
Pro se Plaintiffs Hang Ngoc Lam and Samuel Yasuo Takushi, citizens of Nevada, sued Defendant Hawaiian Gardens Casino, a California corporation with its principal place of business in California, for allegedly failing to pay out the proper amount of a jackpot Plaintiffs won while gambling at Defendant's casino. (ECF No. 1; see also ECF No. 6 at 7.) Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiffs responded to the motion to dismiss by filing a motion to transfer this case to the Central District of California. (ECF No. 13.) Defendants do not oppose transferring this case to the Central District of California. (ECF No. 17.)
It is therefore ordered that Plaintiffs' motion to transfer (ECF No. 13) is granted. This case will be transferred to the Central District of California.
It is further ordered that Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 6) is denied as moot.
The Clerk of Court is directed to effectuate the transfer of venue and close this case.
Source: Leagle
