Peter C. Benedith v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs
| Peter C. Benedith and Peter C Benedith |
| United States Department of Veterans Affairs |
| 2:2022cv02968 |
| May 3, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Rozella A Oliver |
| John F Walter |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 19, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 22
COURT ORDER by Judge John F. Walter. Counsel are hereby notified that a Scheduling Conference has been set for August 1, 2022 at 1:15 p.m. before Judge John F. Walter in Courtroom 7A, 350 W. 1st St, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Lead Trial Counsel shall attend all proceedings before this Court, including the Scheduling Conference. Counsel are directed to comply with Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 26-1 in a timely fashion and to file a Joint Report, on or before July 25, 2022. The title page of the Joint Report must state the date and time of the Scheduling Conference. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.) (rolm)
|
|
Filing 21
ORDER by Judge John F. Walter. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant, shall have up to and including, July 18, 2022, to file a Response to the Complaint. granting #20 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order (rolm)
|
| Filing 20 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for TO SET A DATE FOR DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO RECENTLY TRANSFERRED COMPLAINT ; DECLARATION OF JILL S. CASSELMAN filed by Defendant United States Department of Veterans Affairs. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order, #2 Proof of Service) (Attorney Jill S Casselman added to party United States Department of Veterans Affairs(pty:dft)) (Casselman, Jill) |
| Filing 19 NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF CASE TRANSFERRED IN: Formerly Case Number: 1:21-cv-02579, from District of Columbia. The above-referenced case has been transferred to this district and assigned the above civil case number 2:22-cv-02968 JFW(RAOx). (sh) |
|
Filing 18
SELF-REPRESENTATION ORDER by Judge John F. Walter. One or more of the parties to this action has elected to appear pro se. Persons appearing before this Court are not required to retain the services of a lawyer or obtain the advice of counsel. Individual litigants may represent themselves pro se, but corporations and associations must be represented by counsel. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.) (rolm)
|
|
Filing 17
STANDING ORDER by Judge John F. Walter. READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. IT CONTROLS THE CASE AND DIFFERS IN SOME RESPECTS FROM THE LOCAL RULES. This action has been assigned to the calendar of Judge John F. Walter. Both the Court and counsel bear responsibility for the progress of litigation in Federal Court. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.) (rolm)
|
| Filing 16 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (sh) |
| Filing 15 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (sh) |
| Filing 14 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge John F. Walter and Magistrate Judge Rozella A. Oliver. (sh) |
| Filing 13 ORIGINAL file, certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet received from District of Columbia |
|
MINUTE ORDER granting Defendant's #9 Motion to Transfer. Defendant has moved to transfer this case to the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. 1406(a). Under 1406(a), if venue is improper in this district, and it is "in the interest of justice," the Court may transfer the case to "any district or division in which it could have been brought." Plaintiff brings his claims under Title VII. See ECF No. 1 at 3. Venue in a Title VII case is governed by 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(3). See, e.g., Taylor v. Shimeski, 13 F. Supp. 3d 81, 86 (D.D.C. 2014). Section 2000e-5(f)(3) provides that a Title VII case typically may be brought in either (1) "any judicial district in the State in which the unlawful employment practice is alleged to have been committed," (2) "the judicial district in which the employment records relevant to such practice are maintained and administered," or (3) "the judicial district in which the aggrieved person would have worked but for the alleged unlawful employment practice." If and only if the defendant "cannot be brought before the court" in any district where venue is appropriate under the first three prongs, then the action may be brought in (4) "the judicial district in which the [defendant] has his principal office." See Stebbins v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 413 F.2d 1100, 1102-03 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (per curiam) (discussing the residual prong of 2000e-5(f)(3)). The Court has no basis on which it can conclude that venue is proper in the District of Columbia. Plaintiff makes no attempt to meet his burden of showing that venue is proper here under any of the first three prongs. See Walden v. Locke, 629 F. Supp. 2d 11, 13-14 (D.D.C. 2009). He alleges that he was employed by Defendant in Long Beach, California, see ECF No. 1, and asserts that venue is proper here only because the "United State [sic] is the defendants [sic]," ECF No. 12. And because Defendant is plainly found in the Central District of California, where venue is proper under the first prong, the fourth prong cannot provide the basis for venue here. Thus, because venue is improper here, and proper in the Central District of California, the Court finds that it is in the interest of justice to transfer the case there. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's #9 Motion to Transfer is GRANTED and this case shall be TRANSFERRED to the Central District of California. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 04/13/2022. (lctjk2) [Transferred from District of Columbia on 5/6/2022.]
|
| Filing 12 RESPONSE re #9 MOTION to Transfer Case filed by PETER C. BENEDITH. (ztth) [Transferred from District of Columbia on 5/6/2022.] |
| Filing 11 NOTICE of Change of Address by PETER C. BENEDITH. (ztth) [Transferred from District of Columbia on 5/6/2022.] |
|
Filing 10
Order advising Plaintiff to respond by April 11, 2022, to Defendant's #9 Motion to Transfer. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 03/23/2022. (lctjk2) [Transferred from District of Columbia on 5/6/2022.]
|
| Filing 9 MOTION to Transfer Case by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum in Support)(Adebonojo, Kenneth) [Transferred from District of Columbia on 5/6/2022.] |
|
MINUTE ORDER treating as opposed and granting Defendant's #8 Motion to Enlarge Time to File Defendant's Answer or Other Response to Plaintiff's Complaint. It is hereby ORDERED, for good cause shown, that Defendant's #8 Motion is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Defendant shall answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's complaint by March 22, 2022. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 02/23/2022. (lctjk2) [Transferred from District of Columbia on 5/6/2022.]
|
| Filing 8 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Defendant's Answer or Other Response to Plaintiff's Complaint by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. (Adebonojo, Kenneth) [Transferred from District of Columbia on 5/6/2022.] |
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Appearance by Kenneth A. Adebonojo on behalf of UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS (Adebonojo, Kenneth) [Transferred from District of Columbia on 5/6/2022.] |
|
MINUTE ORDER denying as moot Plaintiff's #5 Motion to Extend Time to Serve Summons. In light of Plaintiff's apparent failure to timely effectuate service under Rule 4(i)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court previously ordered Plaintiff to "either (1) cause process to be served properly pursuant to Rule 4(i) and file proof of service with the Court or (2) file a motion to enlarge time to serve process properly and show excusable neglect, if any, for failure to serve process properly and in a timely fashion" by January 26, 2022. In response, Plaintiff filed before January 26, 2022, a #5 Motion to Extend Time to Serve Summons and an #6 Affidavit of Service ostensibly showing that Plaintiff served the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia pursuant to Rule 4(i)(1)(A). However, Plaintiff still has not filed proof of service on the U.S. Attorney General as required under Rule 4(i)(1)(B). But under Rule 4(i)(4)(A), the Court "must allow a party a reasonable time to cure its failure to... serve a person required to be served under Rule 4(i)(2), if the party has served either the United States attorney or the Attorney General of the United States." For this reason, the Court will give Plaintiff a "reasonable time" to serve the U.S. Attorney General. Thus, it is hereby ORDERED that, by February 25, 2022, Plaintiff shall either (1) serve the U.S. Attorney General under Rule 4(i)(1)(B) and file proof of service with the Court or (2) file a motion to enlarge time to serve process properly under Rule 4(i)(1) and show good cause, if any, for his failure to do so by February 25, 2022. See Bean v. United States, No. 05-cv-2145 (CKK), 2006 WL 8448990, at *2 (D.D.C. Dec. 4, 2006) (giving a plaintiff about one month as "reasonable time" under a prior version of Rule 4(i)(4)(A)). If Plaintiff does not file by February 25, 2022 either that proof of service or a motion to enlarge time that shows good cause, the Court may dismiss this case. Further, because the Court hereby grants Plaintiff additional time to effectuate service under Rule 4(i)(4)(A), it is also hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's #5 Motion is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 01/28/2022. (lctjk2) [Transferred from District of Columbia on 5/6/2022.]
|
| Filing 6 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 1/21/2022. Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 3/22/2022. (ztth) [Transferred from District of Columbia on 5/6/2022.] |
| Filing 5 MOTION for Extension of Time by PETER C. BENEDITH. (ztth) [Transferred from District of Columbia on 5/6/2022.] |
|
MINUTE ORDER: On September 29, 2021, pro se Plaintiff sued the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, alleging employment discrimination. See ECF No. 1. Under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, he had until December 28, 2021, to effectuate service properly. Under Rule 4(i)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure, to serve Defendant properly Plaintiff had to "serve the United States" pursuant to Rule 4(i)(1) "and also send a copy of the summons and of the complaint by registered or certified mail" to Defendant. On November 10, 2021, Plaintiff filed an affidavit and return of service purportedly showing that Defendant had been served. But Plaintiff has not filed any proof that he served the United States pursuant to Rule 4(i)(1). Thus, it is hereby ORDERED that in order to avoid dismissal of this action, by January 26, 2022, Plaintiff shall either (1) cause process to be served properly pursuant to Rule 4(i) and file proof of service with the Court or (2) file a motion to enlarge time to serve process properly and show excusable neglect, if any, for failure to serve process properly and in a timely fashion. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 01/06/2022. (lctjk2) [Transferred from District of Columbia on 5/6/2022.]
|
| Filing 4 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS served on 11/1/2021. (ztth) [Transferred from District of Columbia on 5/6/2022.] |
|
Filing 3
STANDING ORDER. See order for details. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 10/07/2021. (lctjk2) [Transferred from District of Columbia on 5/6/2022.]
|
| Summons (1) Issued as to UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. (ztth) [Transferred from District of Columbia on 5/6/2022.] |
| Filing 2 NOTICE, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge by PETER C BENEDITH. (ztth) [Transferred from District of Columbia on 5/6/2022.] |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS (Filing fee $ 402, receipt number 200715) with Jury Demand filed by PETER C BENEDITH. (Attachment: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (ztth); Modified on 10/6/2021 to add receipt number (ztth). [Transferred from District of Columbia on 5/6/2022.] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
