1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 San Francisco Division 11 MARLIN ARD, Case No. 22-cv-03764-LB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO 13 v. THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

14 HILARY BOYD, et al., Re: ECF No. 1 15 Defendants. 16 17 The Oregon Supreme Court suspended Marlin Ard, an Oregon-based attorney, from the 18 practice of law for one year, effective February 28, 2022. He sued the Oregon Supreme Court 19 justices in this case.1 There is a similar lawsuit in the District of Oregon involving at least some of 20 the same defendants.2 The court’s earlier order to show cause sets forth the facts in more detail and 21 directed Mr. Ard to respond by September 16, 2022, about whether there is venue in the Northern 22 District of California.3 He responded that he does not oppose transfer.4 The court’s earlier order 23 24 25 1 Compl.– ECF No. 1; Opinion, Ex. 2 to id. – ECF No. 1-3 at 1. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (ECF); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of 26 documents. 2 Am. Compl., Ard v. Or. State Bar, No. 20-cv-02143-JR (D. Or. Nov. 22, 2021), ECF No. 47. 27 3 Order – ECF No. 46. ] sets forth the legal standards for venue and transfer.° There is no connection with this forum, there 2 |} likely is no personal jurisdiction, and venue is proper in the District of Oregon. The court transfers 3 || the case to the District of Oregon for lack of venue. (Unlike the pending dispositive motion to 4 || dismiss, which requires the consent of all parties, even non-appearing defendants, for the court to 5 decide it, see Williams v. King,

(9th Cir. 2017), the transfer for lack of venue is 6 || not dispositive and does not require the consent of all parties, In re U.S. Dep’t of Educ., 25 □□□□ 7 || 692, 698-99 (9th Cir. 2022).) 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: September 19, 2022 LAS 10 LAUREL BEELER United States Magistrate Judge

13

16

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 || ° Order — ECF No. 46.