Jetta J. Baptiste v. County of Orange, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: October 8, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-01323
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JETTA J. BAPTISTE, Case No.: 1:25-cv-01323-KES-CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION 13 v. SHOULD NOT BE TRANSFERRED

14 COUNTY OF ORANGE, et al., 14-DAY DEADLINE

15 Defendants.

16 17 Plaintiff Jetta J. Baptiste (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing of a complaint on 18 October 6, 2025. (Doc. 1). 19 Background 20 In her complaint, Plaintiff asserts that numerous Defendants, many of which are affiliated 21 with the County of Orange and the Orange County Superior Court, deprived her of her 22 constitutional rights. Id. at 2-5. In support of her claims to relief, Plaintiff states that, after bringing 23 an action in Orange County Superior Court seeking unpaid wages and challenging unlawful court 24 actions, Defendants retaliated against her by, inter alia, removing the scheduled jury trial from the 25 court’s calendar, striking her operative complaint, denying a hearing on her motion for summary 26 judgment motions and motions to compel discovery, as well as seeking a vexatious litigant 27 designation. Id. at 4-49. Plaintiff’s allegations refer to conduct that occurred within Orange

28 County, which lies in the Central District of Califo rnia. 1 Discussion 2 Plaintiff asserts this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. Id. at 3 3. As such, venue in this action is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391, which provides in relevant part: 4 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; 5 (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving 6 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 7 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. 8 9 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 10 Venue “may be proper in multiple districts if ‘a substantial part of the events or omission 11 giving rise to the claim’ took place in each district.” Newby v. Treyled Life Settlements LLC, No. 12 1:24-CV-00886-JLT-SAB, 2024 WL 5186712, at *17 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2024) (quoting 28 U.S.C. 13 § 1391(b)(2)), report and recommendation adopted as modified, 2025 WL 585913 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 14 24, 2025). Though section 1391 does not require that a majority of events have occurred within 15 the district where the action is filed, “significant events or omissions material to the plaintiff’s claim 16 must have occurred in the district in question, even if other material events occurred elsewhere.” 17 Id. 18 Here, Plaintiff has failed to plead any facts establishing that the Eastern District of 19 California is where a “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise” to her claim occurred. 20 To the contrary, it appears from Plaintiff’s allegations that the conduct giving rise to Plaintiff’s 21 claims occurred in the Central District of California. Plaintiff cites no authority for the proposition 22 she advances that the Eastern District of California is appropriate as a “neutral venue where there 23 will be no interference from those who control the courts and the [Orange County government] 24 system.” (Doc. 1 at 3). 25 While it appears plain from the complaint that this district is an improper venue for the 26 action, even assuming that venue is in fact proper, the Court may sua sponte transfer this case to 27 another district under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), so long as parties are first given the opportunity to 28 present their views on the issue. Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing 1 | Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 934 (D.C. Cir. 1974)) (where neither party has requested 2 | transfer, the district court, should, at a minimum, issue an order to show cause why the case should 3 | not be transferred); see Minichino v. Sutidze, No. C 11-02484 SBA, 2012 WL 621459, at *2 (N.D. 4 | Cal. 2012) (“The Court may sua sponte transfer an action under § 1404(a).”). 5 Accordingly, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why this case should not 6 | be transferred for improper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 7 | Conclusion and Order 8 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. Within 14 days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing 10 why this case should not be transferred for improper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 11 2. Alternatively, Plaintiff may file an application requesting that this case be transferred to the 12 appropriate federal district in which the substantial part of the events occurred, pursuant to 13 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a). 14 Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this case be 15 | dismissed for failure to prosecute. 16 | IT IS SO ORDERED. M Dated: _ October 8, 2025 | hr 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28