This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On April 19, 2013, defendants removed the action to this court from Stanislaus County Superior Court, on the grounds that the action arises under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. Notice of Removal, Dckt. No. 1. Upon review of the action, it appears that in addition to being removed from Stanislaus County, plaintiff resides in Stanislaus County and alleges that the contract at issue was to be performed in Stanislaus County and a defendant's principal place of business is in Stanislaus County. Compl., Dckt. No. 1-1, at 5; see also Notice of Removal at 3 (contending that venue in the Eastern District of California is proper); 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2) ("Where an action under this subchapter is brought in a district court of the United States, it may be brought in the district where the plan is administered, where the breach took place, or where a defendant resides or may be found, and process may be served in any other district where a defendant resides or may be found."). Therefore, the case should have been removed to the district court sitting in Fresno pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 120(d), and will be transferred to Fresno pursuant to Local Rule 120(f). L.R. 120(d) ("All civil and criminal actions and proceedings of every nature and kind cognizable in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California arising in . . . Stanislaus [County] shall be commenced in the United States District Court sitting in Fresno, California"); L.R. 120(f) ("Whenever in any action the Court finds upon its own motion, motion of any party, or stipulation that the action has not been commenced in the proper court in accordance with this Rule, or for other good cause, the Court may transfer the action to another venue within the District.").