1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT J. BLACKWELL, JR., Case No.: 1:25-cv-00267-KES-CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TRANSFERRING ACTION TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 13 v.

14 JEANNE M. BLACKWELL, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Robert J. Blackwell, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing of a 18 complaint on March 3, 2025. (Doc. 1). 19 Background 20 In his complaint, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Jeanne M. Blackwell unlawfully took 21 $1,247,800.00 from the estate of Robert Blackwell, Sr. (Plaintiff’s father). (Id. at 4, 5). In support 22 of his claims to relief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s liability exists under Florida’s elder abuse 23 laws. (Id. at 5). Plaintiff references in his complaint various Florida statutes, alleges that Plaintiff 24 sent Defendant a demand note and waited 30 days before filing this action “[a]s required by Florida 25 law,” and requests punitive damages “as authorized by the [governing Florida] statute.” (Id. at 6). 26 Plaintiff alleges that the main asset of the decedent’s trust is a home in Ocean Ridge, Florida, and 27 that decedent was under the care and custody of Defendant at this residence. (Id. at 5-6). Plaintiff

28 further alleges that Defendant is a citizen and resi dent of Virginia. (See id.). Plaintiff makes no 1 allegations referencing any other conduct relevant to his claims that occurred outside the state of 2 Florida. 3 On March 17, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not 4 be transferred for improper venue pursuant to

(b) and to set forth where in Florida 5 the substantial part of the events occurred and where the substantial part of the property at issue is 6 located, and within which counties specifically. (Doc. 4). Upon Plaintiff’s failure to file a response 7 to the Court’s order by the applicable deadline, the undersigned issued findings and 8 recommendations on April 16, 2025, to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute and obey court 9 orders. (Doc. 6). On May 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed three documents: timely objections to the findings 10 and recommendations (Doc. 7), a request for entry of default as to Defendant (Doc. 8), and a request 11 for a minimum of 30 days for Plaintiff to respond to the Court’s orders (Doc. 9). In his objections, 12 Plaintiff asserted that he never received the Court’s order to show cause. (See Doc. 7). On May 5, 13 2025, the Court granted in part Plaintiff’s request for a minimum 30 days to respond to the Court’s 14 orders and directed Plaintiff to file his response to the order to show cause within 30 days. (Doc. 15 10). 16 Plaintiff filed his response to the order to show cause on June 3, 2025. (Doc. 11). On June 17 4, 2025, the Court directed Plaintiff to provide a supplemental response, noting that “[n]owhere in 18 his response does Plaintiff address the specific inquiry in the order to show cause concerning within 19 which counties in Florida did the substantial part of the events occur and wherein the property is 20 situated.” (Doc. 12 at 1-2). On July 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed a supplemental response providing 21 Palm Beach County as the relevant county. (Doc. 13). 22 Discussion 23 Plaintiff asserts this Court’s jurisdiction is founded on diversity of citizenship, setting forth 24 that he resides in California and Defendant in Virginia. (Doc. 1 at 1-3). As such, venue in this 25 action is governed by

, which provides in relevant part: 26 A civil action may be brought in—(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; 27 (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving 28 1 rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be 2 brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action. 3 4

(b). 5 Venue may be proper in multiple districts if “a substantial part of the events or omission 6 giving rise to the claim” took place in each district. Newby v. Treyled Life Settlements LLC, No. 7 1:24-cv-00886-JLT-SAB,

, at *17 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2024), report and 8 recommendation adopted as modified, No. 1:24-CV-00886-JLT-SAB,

(E.D. Cal. 9 Feb. 24, 2025). Though section 1391 does not require that a majority of events have occurred 10 within the district where the action is filed, “significant events or omissions material to the 11 plaintiff’s claim must have occurred in the district in question, even if other material events 12 occurred elsewhere.”

13 Here, despite Plaintiff’s conclusory assertion that “[s]ubstantial activity underlying this case 14 has occurred in the Eastern District of [California]” (Doc. 11 at 2), Plaintiff has failed to plead any 15 facts establishing that the Eastern District of California is where a “substantial part of the events or 16 omissions giving rise” to his claim occurred, or that this is where a “substantial part of the property” 17 at issue is situated. To the contrary, Plaintiff’s allegations in his complaint state that the conduct 18 giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Florida and that the main asset in dispute is located in 19 Florida. Additionally, Defendant’s address, as stated in the complaint, is in Virginia and not within 20 this district. 21 Even assuming that venue is in fact proper, the Court may sua sponte transfer this case to 22 another district under

(a), so long as parties are first given the opportunity to 23 present their views on the issue. Costlow v. Weeks,

(9th Cir. 1986) (citing 24 Starnes v. McGuire,

(D.C. Cir. 1974)) (where neither party has requested 25 transfer, the district court, should, at a minimum, issue an order to show cause why the case should 26 not be transferred); see Minichino v. Sutidze, No. C 11–02484 SBA,

, at *2 (N.D.

) (“The Court may sua sponte transfer an action under § 1404(a).”). 28 Plaintiff requests the Court “not to dismiss this case for improper venue” and, if the Court 1 | finds venue improper, allow Plaintiff the opportunity to file a change of venue to the Eastern District 2 | of Virginia, as that is “where the Defendant resides and the case could have been filed.” (Doc. 11 3 | at4). 4 The Court has provided Plaintiff the opportunity to present his views and Plaintiff has noted 5 | Palm Beach County as the location in Florida wherein a substantial part of the events occurred and 6 | property is located. The Court finds that, pursuant to

(b), both the Eastern District 7 | of Virginia and the Southern District of Florida are proper venues for this action. As □□□□□□□□□□□ 8 | assertions provide, therefore, that the main asset in dispute is in Palm Beach County, Florida, and 9 | all events at issue occurred there, the Court will transfer this matter to the United States District 10 | Court for the Southern District of Florida. 11 Conclusion and Order 12 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that that this matter is transferred 13 || to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. 14 | ITIS SO ORDERED. S| Dated: _ July 9, 2025 | Word bo 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28