1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PARAMOUNT PROPERTY ) NO. CV 20-9821 JAK (AGRx) 12 ADVISORS, INC., ) ) 13 Plaintiff, ) ) 14 v. ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ) 15 MAXINE J. SHERARD, et al., ) ) 16 Defendants. ) ) 17 ) 18 On October 23, 2020, Ms. Sherard filed a Notice of Removal and a 19 Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 20 For the reasons discussed below, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause, 21 on or before November 23, 2020, why this Court should not recommend denial of 22 Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of filing fees based on improper 23 venue. 24 I. 25 NOTICE OF REMOVAL 26 Ms. Sherard filed a Notice of Removal of an unlawful detainer action filed in 27 San Diego County Superior Court by Paramount Property Advisors, Inc. 28 Ms. Sherard states that she resides in San Diego, California. (Dkt. No. 1 at 1 1, 32, 148.) The premises that is the subject of the unlawful detainer action is 2 located in San Diego and was transferred by grant deed to Paramount Property 3 Advisors at the same address. (Id. at 32, 37.) The unlawful detainer action was 4 filed in San Diego County Superior Court. (Id. at 31.) 5 II. 6 VENUE 7 “A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of 8 citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in (1) a 9 judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same 10 State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions 11 giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the 12 subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant 13 may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.” 14

(b). 15 All parties appear to be in San Diego, California. The property that is the 16 subject of the underlying the unlawful detainer action is in San Diego, California, 17 and all of the events and omissions underlying the unlawful detainer action 18 occurred there. San Diego is in the Southern District of California.

84(b). None of the parties are located in the Central District of California. The 20 property is not located in this district, and none of the events or omissions are 21 alleged to have occurred here. 22 Accordingly, Plaintiff must explain why his request to proceed without 23 prepayment of fees in this district should not be denied. See Costlow v. Weeks, 24

(9th Cir. 1986) (“the district court ha[s] the authority to raise 25 the issue of defective venue on its own motion”); Alexandria v. United States, 26

, *1 (S.D. Cal. 2007) (dismissing complaint for lack of venue at 27 the in forma pauperis stage); see also

(a) (“The district court of 28 a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong . . . district, shall 1 || dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district... in 2 || which it could have been brought.”). 3 lll. 4 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 5 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, on or before November 23, 2020, 6 || Plaintiff shall show cause, if there be any, why this Court should not deny 7 | Plaintiffs request to proceed without prepayment of fees. 8 Plaintiff is also advised that if she fails to timely respond to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff's request to proceed without prepayment of fees 10 || will be denied without prejudice. 11 Unies A Kendra 13 || DATED: November 5, 2020 14 United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28