Mirasco, Inc. v. Al Dahra ACX Global, Inc.
2:17-mc-00108
C.D. Cal.Aug 18, 2017Background
- Mirasco filed a motion to compel third-party Al Dahra ACX Global, Inc. to comply with an amended Rule 45 subpoena served May 3, 2017; production was designated in Los Angeles (Central District of California).
- Mirasco initially attempted service at an address in Bakersfield (Eastern District of California), but later discovered Al Dahra had relocated and issued the amended subpoena designating Los Angeles for production.
- Mirasco filed the motion to compel in the Eastern District of California and the court set a hearing, then issued an order to show cause why the motion should not be denied as filed in the wrong district.
- The parties submitted a joint statement and the amended subpoena; Al Dahra had objected but in its objection identified the Eastern District as a proper forum, although the subpoena’s compliance location was in the Central District.
- The magistrate judge concluded the district where compliance is required (Central District of California) is the proper court under Rule 45 and therefore this Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the motion to compel.
- The court transferred the miscellaneous case to the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (in the interest of justice) and discharged the August 14, 2017 order to show cause; sealing issues were left for the transferee court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper district to decide motion to compel under Rule 45 | Eastern District is proper because initial attempted service listed Bakersfield address and original subpoena named an Eastern District production location | Central District is proper because amended subpoena designated Los Angeles as the place of production and Al Dahra’s location | Held: Central District of California is the district where compliance is required; Eastern District lacks jurisdiction to decide the motion |
| Effect of amended subpoena/service failure of original subpoena | Motion concerns the amended subpoena (served May 3) and should proceed where that subpoena requires compliance | Al Dahra argued Eastern District could hear dispute but location controls under Rule 45 | Held: Motion concerns amended subpoena; district of compliance controls regardless of earlier, unsuccessful service |
| Whether this court may transfer under Rule 45(f) to issuing court (N.D. Ga.) | Mirasco asked this court to transfer to Central District or N.D. Ga. under Rule 45(f) | Rule 45(f) allows transfer by the court where compliance is required, not by a court that is not the district of compliance | Held: This court cannot transfer under Rule 45(f); only the Central District (district of compliance) can transfer to the issuing court under Rule 45(f) |
| Whether to dismiss or transfer the action for lack of jurisdiction | Transfer preferable to avoid delay and justice-defeating dismissal | Transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 is appropriate to cure jurisdictional defect | Held: Transferred to Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 in the interest of justice; sealing issues left to transferee court |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark v. Busey, 959 F.2d 808 (9th Cir. 1992) (§ 1631 transfer cures jurisdictional defects when suit filed in wrong federal court)
- Miller v. Hambrick, 905 F.2d 259 (9th Cir. 1990) (transfer is normally in the interest of justice where action could be brought elsewhere, to avoid time-consuming dismissal)