Summary
The United States District Court for the Central District of California ordered the parties to show cause why the action should not be transferred to the Southern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. § 1404. The court noted that the plaintiff, the property, foreclosure proceedings, and alleged underlying events were located in Texas, making Texas appear to be the more appropriate forum.
Holdings
- A district court may transfer a civil action sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), provided that the parties are first given an opportunity to present their views on the proposed transfer.
- The allegations indicate that a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred in Texas and that the Southern District of Texas appears to be the appropriate forum for the action, warranting an order to show cause regarding transfer.
Questions Presented
- Whether the court may sua sponte consider transferring the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) after giving the parties an opportunity to respond.
- Whether the location of the property, alleged foreclosure activity, lis pendens, and related events in Texas support transferring the case to the Southern District of Texas.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (4)
- Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986)(followed)
- Norwood v. Kirkpatrick, 349 U.S. 29, 32 (1955)(followed)
- Pavao v. Unifund CCR Partners, 934 F. Supp. 2d 1238, 1242 (S.D. Cal. 2013)(followed)
- Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…