The Flats 9388 LLC v. Key Bank, National Association et al.

C.D. California

The Flats 9388 LLC v. Key Bank, National Association et al.

DecidedNovember 10, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-10571

StatusUnknown

This text of The Flats 9388 LLC v. Key Bank, National Association et al. (The Flats 9388 LLC v. Key Bank, National Association et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The Flats 9388 LLC v. Key Bank, National Association et al., (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE FLATS 9388 LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-10571-SB-AGR

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL FOR IMPROPER KEY BANK, NATIONAL VENUE ASSOCIATION et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, a limited-liability company purportedly located in Laguna Hills, California, filed this lawsuit in the Central District of California alleging a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and asserting various state-law claims based on the foreclosure of a multifamily property located in San Antonio, Texas. Dkt. No. 1. The complaint alleges that “[v]enue is proper for this Court since the Subject Property is located in this district because events or events out of which this action arises and which form the basis for this action arise in this district.” Id. ¶ 13 (errors in original). Plaintiff appears to invoke 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), which provides that venue is proper in “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated[.]” Plaintiff bears the burden of showing that venue is proper. Piedmont Label Co. v. Sun Garden Packing Co., 598 F.2d 491, 496 (9th Cir. 1979). The Court may raise the issue of improper venue sua sponte, provided it first gives the parties an opportunity to be heard. Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). It is not apparent from the face of Plaintiff’s complaint that any relevant event or omission giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim occurred in this district, nor that any property that is the subject of the action is located here. Though Plaintiff states that the subject property is located in this district, that statement is expressly contradicted by another allegation in the complaint that the property is “located at 9338 Perrin Beitel Road, San Antonio, Texas 78217 (The Flats at 9338).” Dkt. No. 1. ¶ 15. Further, the factual allegations in the complaint appear to focus on events occurring in Texas, not in this district. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause in writing no later than November 14, 2025, why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for improper venue. If Plaintiff fails to timely respond, it will be deemed to have agreed that venue is improper in this district and that the case should be dismissed without prejudice.

Date: November 10, 2025 ___________________________ Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE FLATS 9388 LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-10571-SB-AGR

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL FOR IMPROPER KEY BANK, NATIONAL VENUE ASSOCIATION et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, a limited-liability company purportedly located in Laguna Hills, California, filed this lawsuit in the Central District of California alleging a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and asserting various state-law claims based on the foreclosure of a multifamily property located in San Antonio, Texas. Dkt. No. 1. The complaint alleges that “[v]enue is proper for this Court since the Subject Property is located in this district because events or events out of which this action arises and which form the basis for this action arise in this district.” Id. ¶ 13 (errors in original). Plaintiff appears to invoke 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), which provides that venue is proper in “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated[.]” Plaintiff bears the burden of showing that venue is proper. Piedmont Label Co. v. Sun Garden Packing Co., 598 F.2d 491, 496 (9th Cir. 1979). The Court may raise the issue of improper venue sua sponte, provided it first gives the parties an opportunity to be heard. Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). It is not apparent from the face of Plaintiff’s complaint that any relevant event or omission giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim occurred in this district, nor that any property that is the subject of the action is located here. Though Plaintiff states that the subject property is located in this district, that statement is expressly contradicted by another allegation in the complaint that the property is “located at 9338 Perrin Beitel Road, San Antonio, Texas 78217 (The Flats at 9338).” Dkt. No. 1. ¶ 15. Further, the factual allegations in the complaint appear to focus on events occurring in Texas, not in this district. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause in writing no later than November 14, 2025, why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for improper venue. If Plaintiff fails to timely respond, it will be deemed to have agreed that venue is improper in this district and that the case should be dismissed without prejudice.

Date: November 10, 2025 ___________________________ Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

The Flats 9388 LLC v. Key Bank, National Association et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-flats-9388-llc-v-key-bank-national-association-et-al-cacd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack