Summary
The court recommends denying Plaintiff Lawrence Christopher Smith’s motion to transfer venue and motion for summary judgment. It concludes that Smith has not provided an adequate basis for transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and that summary judgment is premature because the complaint has not been screened, service has not been ordered, and discovery has not begun.
Holdings
- The requested transfer should be denied because Plaintiff did not provide an adequate basis for transfer under § 1404(a).
- The motion for summary judgment should be denied as premature because the complaint had not been screened, service had not been ordered, discovery had not begun, and Defendants had not had an opportunity to pursue discovery.
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiff established an adequate basis for transferring the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
- Whether Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was premature before complaint screening, service, an answer, and discovery.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (8)
- Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000)(applied)
- Baker v. German, No. 1:16-cv-01873-AWI-SAB (PC), 2017 WL 531937, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2017), recommendation adopted, 2017 WL 1427028 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2017)(applied)
- Dews v. County of Kern, No. 14-16423, 599 F. App'x 681, 682 (9th Cir. Mar. 27, 2015)(applied)
- Williams v. Yuan Chen, No. S-10-1292 CKD P, 2011 WL 4354533, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2011)(applied)
- Moore v. Hubbard, No. CIV S-06-2187 FCD EFB P, 2009 WL 688897, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2009)(applied)
- Vining v. Runyon, 99 F.3d 1056, 1058 (11th Cir. 1996)(applied)
- Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)(applied)
- Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)(applied)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…