Mohammadi v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

District Court, S.D. California · 3:24-cv-00553 · 2024-04-08 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Andrew G. Schopler (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T21:34Z · confidence high

The parties jointly moved to transfer venue in a civil action against USCIS. The court granted the motion, finding that venue was improper in the Southern District of California because no defendant resided there and the relevant events occurred in Maryland, and ordered the case transferred to the Central District of California.

What the court decided	The model
Joint Motion to Transfer Civil Action granted “Thus, the joint motion is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to TRANSFER this civil action for lack of proper venue, in the interests of justice, and for the convenience of the parties, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California.”	agree with court The court correctly applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) to determine that venue was improper in the Southern District of California. The order recites that the plaintiff resides in the Central District of California, no defendant resides in the Southern District, and the agency action occurred in Maryland. Under the statute, venue is proper where a defendant resides (if all do) or where a substantial part of the events occurred. Since neither condition is met in the Southern District, venue is improper. The court then exercised its discretion to transfer the case to the Central District of California, which is a proper venue because the plaintiff resides there (and likely where the plaintiff's home address is located, satisfying the 'defendant resides' prong if the defendant is considered to reside where the plaintiff resides for certain federal agency actions, or more simply, the court is transferring to a district where venue is proper). The transfer is supported by the 'interests of justice' and 'convenience of the parties' language, which aligns with 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) or the inherent power to transfer for lack of venue. The decision follows from the law and the recited facts.

What the court decided

The model

Joint Motion to Transfer Civil Action granted

“Thus, the joint motion is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to TRANSFER this civil action for lack of proper venue, in the interests of justice, and for the convenience of the parties, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California.”

agree with court
The court correctly applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) to determine that venue was improper in the Southern District of California. The order recites that the plaintiff resides in the Central District of California, no defendant resides in the Southern District, and the agency action occurred in Maryland. Under the statute, venue is proper where a defendant resides (if all do) or where a substantial part of the events occurred. Since neither condition is met in the Southern District, venue is improper. The court then exercised its discretion to transfer the case to the Central District of California, which is a proper venue because the plaintiff resides there (and likely where the plaintiff's home address is located, satisfying the 'defendant resides' prong if the defendant is considered to reside where the plaintiff resides for certain federal agency actions, or more simply, the court is transferring to a district where venue is proper). The transfer is supported by the 'interests of justice' and 'convenience of the parties' language, which aligns with 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) or the inherent power to transfer for lack of venue. The decision follows from the law and the recited facts.

The order itself: sound — The order is concise but legally sound. It correctly identifies the statutory test for venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), applies the facts (plaintiff's residence, defendant's non-residence, location of agency action) to show venue is improper in the current district, and orders transfer to a district where venue is proper (Central District of California, where the plaintiff resides). The citation to Atlantic Marine supports the conclusion that improper venue requires dismissal or transfer. The order does not explicitly cite 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for the transfer mechanism, but the language 'in the interests of justice, and for the convenience of the parties' is consistent with that statute and the court's inherent authority. The reasoning is sufficient for a joint motion to transfer.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 || Ali L. MOHAMMADI, Case No.: 24-cv-0553-AGS-AHG 4 Pant) ORDER GRANTING JOINT 5 || V. MOTION TO TRANSFER CIVIL 6 || UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION ACTION (ECF 4) 7 AND CITIZENSHIP SERVICES, et al., g Defendants. 9 10 The parties jointly move to transfer venue. Their motion is granted. 11 A “civil action may be brought in-(1) a judicial district in which any defendant 12 resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; [or] (2) a 13 ||judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the 14 |/claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is 15 ||situated[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). 16 || If a case “falls within” these categories, then “venue is proper; if 1t does not, venue is 17 ||amproper, and the case must be dismissed or transferred.” Atlantic Marine Const. Co. v. 18 || United States Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. of Texas, 571 U.S. 49, 56 (2013). 19 “Plaintiff resides in the Central District of California, no defendant resides in this 20 ||judicial district,” and the action concerns a petition being handled at a federal-agency 21 Service center in Maryland. (See ECF 4, at 1.) Thus, the joint motion is GRANTED. The 22 || Clerk is directed to TRANSFER this civil action for lack of proper venue, in the interests 23 || of justice, and for the convenience of the parties, to the United States District Court for the 24 Central District of California. 25 Dated: April 8, 2024 26 4 i / 7 Hon. Trew G. Schopler United States District Judge 28