Santos v. Lynch

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: June 2, 2016
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2016-1039
• Status: Published

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 VIRNA L. SANTOS, No. 1:16-cv-00351-DAD-SMS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DISMISSAL 14 LORETTA LYNCH, OR TRANSFER 15 Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 9, 13) 16

18 On April 29, 2016, defendant Loretta Lynch filed a motion to dismiss this action for lack

19 of venue pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or in the alternative,

20 to transfer the matter to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. (Doc. No.

21 9.) Subsequently, on May 27, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation to transfer this action to the

22 District of Columbia. (Doc. No. 13.)

23 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), “[t]he district court of a district in which is filed a case

24 laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice,

25 transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.” According to

26 the stipulation, the parties agree that the District of Columbia is the only district for which venue

27 is proper. (Doc. No. 13 at 1.) Finding good cause and in the interests of justice, the court grants

28 the parties’ stipulation. 1 1 Accordingly,

2 1. The parties’ stipulation to transfer this action to the District of Columbia (Doc. No.

3 13) is granted;

4 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to transfer this action to the United States District

5 Court for the District of Columbia as soon as reasonably possible;

6 3. Defendant’s motion for dismissal or transfer (Doc. No. 9) is denied as moot; and

7 4. The initial scheduling conference, currently set for June 22, 2016 before Magistrate

8 Judge Sandra M. Snyder, is vacated.

9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: May 31, 2016 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20 21

26 27

28 2