Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Apostol v. Castro Valley Unified School Dist.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 12, 2009

ROMEO V. APOSTOL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CASTRO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

Plaintiff, an individual proceeding in propria persona, has filed an employment discrimination action asserting jurisdiction pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the ADEA. Plaintiff has also applied to proceed in forma pauperis. The case has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

Plaintiff alleges discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and other violations of his rights by the school district, the superintendent, the assistant superintendent, the operations supervisor, the adult school director, the business services assistant superintendent, the director of maintenance and operations, the site supervisor, and union representatives. Plaintiff's claims arise from events that occurred within the school district, which is located in the County of Alameda.

The federal venue statute provides that

[a] civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided in law, be brought only in (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Here, defendant Castro Valley Unified School District is located in Alameda County and a substantial part, if not all, of the events or omissions giving rise to plaintiff's claims occurred in Alameda County. The action should have been brought in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California because Alameda County is part of that district. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(a). In the interests of justice, this action will be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for further proceedings, including a ruling on plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

20090612

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.