Legal Opinion

Jimenez v. Pierce

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided July 14, 1970No. 70 Civ. 1462 D.N.EPublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM

EDELSTEIN, District Judge.

This is a motion by the Attorney General of New York to dismiss this action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12 (b) (3) for improper venue, or, in the alternative, to transfer this action to a district in which venue properly lies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). While the precise basis of federal jurisdiction is not clearly spelled out in the pro se complaint, it would appear that plaintiff’s claim is based in part, at least, upon 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq. and 28 U.S. C. § 1343, 1 for which the applicable venue provision is found in 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b):

“A civil…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Philadelphia Housing Authority v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1968
  2. Rosen v. Savant Instruments, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1967
  3. Sutton v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, COMMONWEALTH OF PA.District Court, S.D. New York · 1968

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Sinwell, William v. Governor Milton Shapp, Governor of PennsylvaniaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1976
  2. Rios v. MarshallDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1981
  3. Uniroyal, Inc. v. HellerDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1974
  4. Cheeseman v. CareyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1980
  5. Kipperman v. McConeDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1976

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API