Chan v. Target Corporation et al
Plaintiff: Shirley Chan
Defendant: Target Corporation and John Doe
Case Number: 2:2022cv02200
Filed: September 19, 2022
Court: US District Court for the Central District of Illinois
Presiding Judge: Colin Stirling Bruce
Referring Judge: Eric I Long
Nature of Suit: P.I.: Other
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1396 - Tort Negligence
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on September 23, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
September 23, 2022 Remark: Case transferred from Illinois Central has been opened in Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF NextGen 1.6.3 as case 1:22-cv-05181, filed 09/23/2022. (TC)
September 22, 2022 Case transferred to the Northern District of Illinois. (BMG)
September 22, 2022 Opinion or Order TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Colin S. Bruce on 9-22-2022. Pro se Plaintiff Shirley Chan, a resident of Chicago, Illinois, filed this Complaint #1 against Defendant Target Corporation, over an injury she received due to Defendant's alleged negligence at its store in Hoffman Estates, Illinois. Plaintiff resides in Chicago, which is in the Northern District of Illinois; Defendant is a Minnesota corporation (see George & Company LLC v. Target Corp., 2021 WL 2948910, at *1 (N.D. Ill. July 14, 2021)), with a store located in Hoffman Estates; and the injury at Defendant's store occurred in Hoffman Estates, which is in the Northern District of Illinois. 28 U.S.C. 93(a)(1). There is no connection, at all, to the Central District of Illinois. Plaintiff has filed her suit in the wrong district. A district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district 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). Although none of the parties have, as of yet, requested a transfer, a court, where venue is improper, may sua sponte transfer the case to a district where venue is proper, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1406(a). Starr Indemnity & Liability Co. v. Luckey Logistics, Inc., 2017 WL 2466505, at *7 n.6 (C.D. Ill. June 7, 2017). The court does so here. Because the Northern District is the situs of events, venue is proper in that district. 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). The court hereby directs the clerk to transfer this matter to the Northern District of Illinois. This case is terminated in the Central District of Illinois. (BMG)
September 19, 2022 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against John Doe, Target Corporation, filed by Shirley Chan.(BMG)

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 Illinois Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Chan v. Target Corporation et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Shirley Chan
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Target Corporation
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: John Doe
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?