Mark Glinoga, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sullivan Entertainment Inc., Sullivan Home Entertainment Limited, Sullivan Entertainment International
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed the plaintiff's response to an order to show cause regarding jurisdiction and venue, finding that while the plaintiff cured the jurisdictional defects, venue was improper but waived by the defendants. The court directed the plaintiff to file an amended complaint to correct clerical errors in the complaint by October 21, 2025.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
The court denied the implicit motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, finding the plaintiff's explanations sufficient.“Plaintiff has explained why the Court has subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over Defendants.” | unsure The order recites that the plaintiff provided an explanation for jurisdiction, and the court accepted this without further elaboration. As the order does not detail the specific legal arguments or facts relied upon to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements, it is not possible to independently verify if the legal application was correct, though the procedural posture suggests the court found the explanation adequate to proceed. |
The court determined that venue was not proper in the Southern District of California but concluded that the issue was waived by the defendants.“Plaintiff has not shown venue is proper in this district, but the Court concludes it has been waived by Defendants.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that venue was improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because the defendants did not reside in the district and the events occurred in the Central District. However, the court applied the rule that venue is waivable if not raised in the first defensive motion or answer. This is a standard procedural application in federal courts. The reasoning is sound based on the cited authorities. |
The court ordered the plaintiff to file an amended complaint to correct clerical errors regarding jurisdiction and venue.“Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS Plaintiff to file an amended complaint to correct the clerical error concerning subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction and venue in the complaint on or before October 21, 2025.” | agree with court The court granted leave to amend to correct scrivener's errors, which is a common and appropriate procedural remedy when a complaint contains obvious clerical mistakes that do not affect the substantive claims. The deadline set is reasonable. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly distinguishes between jurisdiction (which must be established) and venue (which is waivable). The court properly applied the statutory venue requirements to find venue improper but then correctly applied case law to find the defect waived due to the defendants' failure to raise it. The directive to amend for clerical errors is appropriate.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARK GLINOGA, on behalf of himself Case No.: 25CV0707-GPC(SBC) and all others similarly situated, 12 ORDER FOLLOWING ORDER TO Plaintiff, 13 SHOW CAUSE WHY THE CASE v. SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 14 LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER SULLIVAN ENTERTAINMENT INC., 15 JURISDICTION, PERSONAL SULLIVAN HOME ENTERTAINMENT JURISDICTION AND FOR LACK 16 LIMITED, SULLIVAN OF VENUE ENTERTAINMENT INTERNATIONAL 17 INC., AND SULLIVAN 18 ENTERTAINMENT GROUP INC., 19 Defendants. 20 21 On October 14, 2025, the Court issued an order to show cause why the case should 22 not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction and for lack 23 of venue. (Dkt. No. 11.) On October 17, 2025, Plaintiff filed a response explaining the 24 reference to the Southern District of New York concerning jurisdiction and venue in the 25 complaint was a scrivener’s error and seeks leave to amend to correct the clerical 26 mistakes. (Dkt. No. 12.) Plaintiff has explained why the Court has subject matter 27 jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Plaintiff has not shown venue is 28 1 || proper in this district, but the Court concludes it has been waived by Defendants. See 2 || Leroy v. Great W. United Corp., 443 U.S. 173, 180 (1979) (venue is waivable); Pratt v. 3 || Rowland, 769 F. Supp. 1128, 1132 (N.D. Cal. 1991) (venue waived if not raised in the 4 || first defensive motion or answer to the complaint). 5 Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS Plaintiff to file an amended complaint to correct 6 || the clerical error concerning subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction and venue 7 ||in the complaint on or before October 21, 2025. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || Dated: October 17, 2025 <= 10 Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ||! Contrary to Plaintiffs argument that venue is proper in this district, the complaint alleges that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in Inglewood, California, 23 which is within the Central District of California, not the Southern District of California. Further, Plaintiff maintains that because one Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction and all Defendants reside in jurisdictions within the United States, venue is proper in this district. (Dkt. No. 12 at 3.) Not 25 || so. First, the complaint alleges that Defendants’ registered address is in Ontario, Canada and not in any jurisdiction in the United States. (Dkt. No. 1, Comp. §] 28.) Further, § 1391(b)(1) provides that venue is 26 || proper in a “judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district 1s located[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1391. The fact that Defendants reside in jurisdiction within 27 || the United States is of no relevance. Therefore, venue is not proper under § 1391(b)(1) because the 28 complaint has not alleged that one defendant resides in the Southern District of California and all defendants are residents of California. ty