AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Motions
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Motions
Attorney(S)
Judges

MARIA DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. HENRY SCHEIN, INC. Defendant.

JOHN A. MENDEZ

ANGELA J. RAFOTH, Bar No. 241966
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Attorney for Defendant
HENRY SCHEIN, INC.




ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT HENRY SCHEIN, INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR IMPROPER VENUE AND DENYING PLAINTIFF MARIA DAVIS' MOTION TO TRANSFER

At 9:30 a.m. on February 20, 2013, Defendant Henry Schein, Inc's Motion To Dismiss for Improper Venue (Docket No. 7) and Plaintiff Maria Davis's Motion to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (Docket No. 10), came on regularly for hearing before this Court in Courtroom 6, the Honorable John A. Mendez presiding. Angela J. Rafoth and Jessica Rothenberg of Littler Mendelson P.C. appeared on behalf of Defendant, and Jennifer Tachera appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.

After considering the moving and opposition papers on the cross-motions, evidence and arguments of the parties, and all other matters presented to the Court, the Court finds that, good cause appearing, Plaintiff's Complaint shall be dismissed for improper venue, and the Court declines to exercise its discretion to transfer the case under 28 U.S.C. section 1406. Plaintiff has admitted that the Complaint filed in this Court improperly cited the general venue provision, 28 U.S.C. section 1391, rather than the special venue provision in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000(e)-(5)(f)(3), which is applicable to Plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff further admits that venue is improper in this Court under Title VII's venue provision. Because Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence demonstrating diligence in determining the proper venue in which to bring her action, and has filed a substantively identical action in the District of Nevada, where the parties agree venue is proper, the Court finds that it is not in the interests of justice to transfer the action pending in this Court, and will grant Defendant's motion to dismiss.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue (Docket No. 7) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Motion to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1406 (Docket No. 10) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________


JOHN A. MENDEZ


United States District Court Judge


Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Davis v. Henry Schein, Inc.
(Mar 1, 2013)