Lowes v. Fitness AI, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed Plaintiffs' response to an order to show cause regarding the propriety of venue in the Southern District of California. The court dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of venue because Plaintiffs failed to allege facts satisfying 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the case without prejudice for lack of venue“Because Plaintiffs have failed to show venue is proper in this district, the Court DISMISSES the case without prejudice for lack of venue.” | agree with court The court correctly applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) to determine that venue was improper because the complaint did not allege that any defendant resided in the district or that a substantial part of the events occurred there. The court correctly rejected the Plaintiffs' reliance on 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) because that statute allows for transfer only when venue is proper in the original district. The court also correctly distinguished between personal jurisdiction and venue, noting that the 'targeting' of California residents does not establish venue under § 1391(b). |
The order itself: sound — The order is legally sound. It correctly identifies that venue is a threshold requirement that must be satisfied before a court can consider a transfer under § 1404(a). It correctly distinguishes between personal jurisdiction (which the plaintiffs attempted to argue) and venue (which is governed by § 1391(b)). The dismissal without prejudice is the appropriate remedy when a plaintiff fails to cure a venue defect after being given notice.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LINN LOWES, an individual; LARS Case No.: 25cv1975-GPC(JLB) ERIK BACK, an individual, 12 ORDER FOLLOWING ORDER Plaintiffs, 13 SHOW CAUSE AND DISMISSING v. CASE FOR LACK OF VENUE 14 FITNESS AI, INC., a Delaware 15 Corporation; APPEX GROUP, INC., a 16 Massachusetts Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 On August 11, 2025, the Court issued an order to show cause why the case should 20 not be dismissed or transferred for lack of venue. (Dkt. No. 4.) The Court explained that 21 there are no facts alleged in the complaint that this is “a judicial district in which any 22 defendant resides”, or that this is a “judicial district in which a substantial part of the 23 events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that 24 is the subject of the action is situated.” (Id. at 2-3 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).) 25 On August 15, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a response but has failed to address how venue 26 is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Instead, Plaintiffs ask the Court to 27 apply 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the change of venue statute, where a party may motion the 28 1 || court for a change of venue considering the convenience of the parties and witnesses and 2 || the interests of justice; however, “Section 1404(a) ‘was drafted in accordance with the 3 || doctrine of forum non conveniens, permitting transfer to a more convenient forum, even 4 ||though the venue is proper” Atlantic Marine Const. Co., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for W. 5 || Dist. of Texas, 571 U.S. 49, 60 (2013) (emphasis added). Here, Plaintiffs have not made 6 || the initial showing that venue is proper in this district. Accordingly, their reliance on § 7 || 1404(a) is without merit. 8 Plaintiffs also argue that the Court has jurisdiction over Defendants because they 9 ||have targeted California residents and have clients who are California residents. (Dkt. 10 ||No. 5 at 5.) An inquiry whether a forum State may assert specific jurisdiction over a 11 |/nonresident defendant “focuses on ‘the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and 12 || the litigation.” Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 284 (2014). Here, the dispute at issue 13 || concerns breaches of the Asset Purchase Agreement between Plaintiffs and Defendants 14 || and does not involve Defendants’ clients who are in California. Plaintiffs’ jurisdictional 15 |}argument fails. Finally, Plaintiffs ask the Court to make equity considerations because 16 || their counsel of record is only admitted in California and Florida and the costs of being 17 || admitted to another jurisdiction and retaining a second, local counsel will be costly to 18 ||them. They ask the Court to retain jurisdiction or transfer the case to the Florida District 19 || Court, a court closer to Defendants’ situs. (Dkt. No. 5 at 7.) Not only do Plaintiffs 20 || provide no legal authority to support their request, venue and personal jurisdiction are not 21 based on the bar admissions of Plaintiffs’ counsel but grounded on long-standing 22 || precedent described in the order to show cause. Because Plaintiffs have failed to show 23 venue is proper in this district, the Court DISMISSES the case without prejudice for 24 || lack of venue. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 ||Dated: August 19, 2025 2 27 Hon. athe Cae 28 United States District Judge