Gargano v. Champlain Valley Exhibition Corporation
| John Andrew Gargano |
| Champlain Valley Exhibition Corporation |
| 2:2023cv00014 |
| January 19, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Vermont |
| Geoffrey W Crawford |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 19, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 CASE TRANSFERRED IN from District of New York Eastern; Case Number 1:22-cv-07652. |
ORDER: Plaintiff John Andrew Gargano brings this pro se action pursuant to the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") against the Champlain Valley Exhibition Corporation located in Essex Junction, Vermont. (Compl., Dkt. 1, at 2, 4.) Plaintiff was ordered to show cause as to why venue is proper in this district on 12/19/2022. (12/19/2022 Docket Order.) Plaintiff's #3 response does not establish that venue is proper in the Eastern District of New York. Rather, Plaintiff's allegations relate to events that took place in Burlington, Vermont (Dkt. 4, at 1-2, ) and Albany County New York (Dkt. 4, at 1-2, 9-11). Notably, Plaintiff does not mention Defendant, Champlain Valley Exhibition Corporation in his #3 response. "In civil RICO cases... Plaintiff may properly lay venue in accordance with either 18 U.S.C. 1965 or 28 U.S.C. 1391." City of New York v. Cyco.Net, Inc., 383 F. Supp. 2d 526, 543-44 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). "[I]t is the policy in this Circuit to conflate personal jurisdiction and venue by reading the RICO venue provision to permit adjudication in any district where minimum contacts are established." Id. (internal citation omitted). Here, Plaintiff still has not alleged Defendant has minimum contacts, or any contacts, with the Eastern District of New York. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not shown that the Eastern District of New York is the proper venue under either Sections 1391(b)(1) or 1391(b)(2). Under Section 1391(b)(1), venue is proper in "a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located in." 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(1). Here, Defendant is located in Essex Junction, VT. (Dkt. 1, at 2.) Under Section 1391(b)(2), venue is proper in a judicial district "in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred." Here, Plaintiff does not allege any facts or events related to Defendant's actions in this district in either his Complaint or his response to the Courts order to show cause. (See Dkt. 1 and Dkt. 3.) Thus, venue in this district is also not proper under Section 1391(b)(2). A district court may "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). Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the Clerk of Court is hereby directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the District of Vermont. 28 U.S.C. 112(d); 1406(a). Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 1/19/2023. (FG) [Transferred from New York Eastern on 1/19/2023.]
|
| Case electronically transferred to District of Vermont. ALL FILINGS ARE TO BE MADE IN THE TRANSFER COURT, DO NOT DOCKET TO THIS CASE. (FG) [Transferred from New York Eastern on 1/19/2023.] |
| Filing 3 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE dtd. 1/18/2023 by John Andrew Gargano. (ML) [Transferred from New York Eastern on 1/19/2023.] |
|
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Plaintiff John Andrew Gargano brings this pro se action pursuant to the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"). Plaintiff alleges Defendant Champlain Valley Exhibition Corporation of "extortion, use of excessive force[,] improper confiscation of personal property[,] severe physical and emotional trauma[,] [and] civil rights violations." Because Plaintiff's claims appear to relate only to a Defendant and events that are located in Chittenden County, Vermont, this Court is not the appropriate court in which to file this action. "In civil RICO cases... Plaintiff may properly lay venue in accordance with either 18 U.S.C. 1965 or 28 U.S.C. 1391." City of New York v. Cyco.Net, Inc., 383 F. Supp. 2d 526, 543-44 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). "[I]t is the policy in this Circuit to conflate personal jurisdiction and venue by reading the RICO venue provision to permit adjudication in any district where minimum contacts are established." Id. (internal citation omitted). Here, Plaintiff has not alleged Defendant has minimum contacts, or any contacts, with the Eastern District of New York. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not shown that the Eastern District of New York is the proper venue under either Sections 1391(b)(1) or 1391(b)(2). Under Section 1391(b)(1), venue is proper in "a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located in." 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(1). Here, Defendant is located in Essex Junction, VT. (Dkt. 1, at 2.) Thus, venue is not proper in this district pursuant to Section 1391(b)(1). Under Section 1391(b)(2), venue is proper in a judicial district "in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred." Here, Plaintiff does not make any assertions regarding where Defendant's alleged actions occurred. (Dkt. 1, at 5.) Thus, venue is also not proper under Section 1391(b)(2). A district court may "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). Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed or transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1406(a) by 1/18/2023. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 12/19/2022. (LC) [Transferred from New York Eastern on 1/19/2023.]
|
| Filing 2 Summons Issued as to All Defendants. (SR) [Transferred from New York Eastern on 1/19/2023.] |
| FILING FEE: $ 402.00, receipt number 100003611 (SR) [Transferred from New York Eastern on 1/19/2023.] |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by John Andrew Gargano. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (SR) [Transferred from New York Eastern on 1/19/2023.] |
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 Vermont 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
| Search for this case: Gargano v. Champlain Valley Exhibition Corporation | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: John Andrew Gargano | |
| 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: Champlain Valley Exhibition 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 ] |
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.
