1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION

7 JOHN S BARTH, Case No. 5:20-cv-09288-NC (EJD)

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO v. SEAL; DISMISSING ACTION FOR 9 IMPROPER VENUE MABRY CARLTON RANCH, INC, et al., 10 Re: Dkt. No. 3 Defendants. 11 12 13 Pro se Plaintiff has submitted a request to file under seal (1) a 68-page complaint asserting 14 claims for racketeering against numerous defendants, including public officials; and (2) 56 pages 15 of exhibits. Dkt. No. 3. Plaintiff asserts that sealing is required by the FBI and IRS and to prevent 16 Defendants from destroying evidence or moving assets out of the country. Plaintiff also asserts 17 that sealing is appropriate because some of his claims involve violations of the False Claims Act. 18 If the motion to seal is not granted, Plaintiff requests a refund of his filing fee and return of his 19 documents. 20 Having reviewed Plaintiff’s submissions, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not established 21 that the materials are sealable under the Local Rules or the False Claims Act. Moreover, the Court 22 finds that venue is improper in this district. Plaintiff’s claims relate to property in Florida and 23 conduct that took place in Florida, and therefore venue is improper under

(b). 24 Plaintiff’s suit should have been brought in the Middle District of Florida, notwithstanding 25 Plaintiff’s assertion that the courts are corrupt. See Barth v. Mabry Carlton Ranch Inc.,

5989206 (D. Or. Oct. 8, 2020); Barth v. Mabry Carlton Ranch, Inc.,

(D. 27 Hawai’i June 1, 2020). 1 Plaintiff asserts that venue is proper “under

(a) in any district which a 2 defendant ‘resides, is found, has an agent, or transacts his affairs’ or under local rules, where acts 3 have had ‘significant effects in California.” Compl. at 111. Plaintiff, however, has not shown that 4 Defendants reside, are found in, have agents, or transact affairs in California. Nor has Plaintiff 5 cited to a Local Rule that would allow for venue in California. Instead, Plaintiff asserts that 6 California residents have or will pay an estimated $3,502,800 to Defendants as a result of the 7 alleged crimes. Plaintiff’s theory is that Defendants’ theft of $120 million resulted in bond 8 interest paid by taxes on property, including that of non-residents from whom $25.2 million was 9 taken. Because Californians are 13.9% of the U.S. population, Plaintiff estimates that Californians 10 || will pay 13.9% of the $25.2 million. These allegations, however, lack a sufficient factual basis 11 and are too speculative. 12 Plaintiffs motion to seal is DENIED. The case is ordered dismissed for improper venue 5 13 |] pursuant to

(a) rather than transferred because Plaintiff does not wish to pursue 14 || his claims in the Middle District of Florida. The Clerk shall close the file.

a 16 IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 Dated: December 23, 2020 19 eNO. EDWARD J. DAVILA 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No.: 5:20-cv-09288-NC ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL; DISMISSING ACTION FOR IMPROPER VENUE