Mogaji v. Chan et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
)
MARTHA I.O. MOGAJI, 	)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil No. 19-12585-LTS
)
TOM CHAN, et al., 	)
Defendants. 	)
)
ORDER OF TRANSFER
February 12, 2020
SOROKIN, J.
On December 24, 2019, Marth I.O. Mogaji (“Mogaji”) filed a pro se complaint. Doc. No.
1. With her complaint, she filed an application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees
or costs. 	Doc. No. 2. 	On January 24, 2020, Mogaji filed a complaint that was entered on the
docket as Mogaji’s amended complaint. Doc. No. 4.
In this diversity action, Mogaji assets claims arising from events and proceedings that
occurred in New Hampshire. Mogaji resides in Massachusetts and the defendants are all located
in New Hampshire.
After reviewing the pleadings, the court concludes that venue for this action does not lie
within the District of Massachusetts. The term “venue” refers to “the geographic specification of
the proper court or courts for the litigation of a civil action that is within the subject-matter
jurisdiction of the district courts.” 28 U.S.C. § 1390(a). When jurisdiction is founded solely on
diversity, venue is proper 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 the property that is the subject of the
Case 1:20-cv-00249-JL Document 5 Filed 02/12/20 Page 1 of 2

2
action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction
at the time the action is commenced, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be
brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
Here, subsections (1) and (3) of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) do not establish venue in the District
of Massachusetts because none of the defendants are alleged to reside in Massachusetts.
Subsection (2) does not provide for venue within this district because none of the “events or
omissions giving rise to the claim” occurred in the District of Massachusetts. The alleged “events
or omissions giving rise to the [plaintiff’s] claim” occurred in New Hampshire.
Where venue is improper, a district court “shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice,
transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. §
1406(a). Under the circumstances, it is in the interest of justice to transfer this case.
Based upon the foregoing, the clerk directed to transfer this action to the United States
District Court for the District of New Hampshire pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Whether Mogaji
should be permitted to proceed without prepayment of fees or costs is a determination to be made
by the transferee court.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Leo T. Sorokin
Leo T. Sorokin
United States District Judge
Case 1:20-cv-00249-JL Document 5 Filed 02/12/20 Page 2 of 2