United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
C. Nye U.S. District Court Judge.
before the Court is Defendant Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance
Company of Idaho's Motion to Change Venue. Dkt. 22.
Having reviewed the record and briefs, the Court finds that
the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented.
Accordingly, in the interest of avoiding further delay, and
because the Court finds that the decisional process would not
be significantly aided by oral argument, the Court will
decide the motion without oral argument. Dist. Idaho Loc.
Civ. R. 7.1(d)(2)(ii). For the reasons set forth below, the
Court DENIES the Motion to Change Venue.
pending is Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time to Amend
Complaint. Dkt. 34. This motion is unopposed; therefore, the
Court will GRANT the Motion to Extend Time.
28, 2017, Plaintiff Mike Newell filed suit in the State of
Idaho, Fourth Judicial District, Ada County. In his
Complaint, Newell alleges four causes of actions against
defendants, including a claim for religious discrimination
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Also on June
28, 2017, Defendant Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of
Idaho (“Farm Bureau”) filed a notice to remove
the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Idaho. Pursuant to Idaho Local District Civil Rule 3.1, the
Clerk of the Court assigned the case to the Southern Division
of the District of Idaho because the case was removed from
Ada County. On September 27, 2017, Farm Bureau filed the
instant Motion to Change Venue seeking to have venue changed
from the Southern Division (Boise) to the Eastern Division
(Pocatello). Plaintiff filed an opposition. The other named
Defendants do not oppose the Motion.
28 U.S.C. § 1391
general venue statute provides in relevant part:
(b) Venue in general.--A civil action may be brought in--
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if
all defendants are residents of the State in which the
district is located;
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the
events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a
substantial part of property that is the subject of the
action is situated; or
(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise
be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district
in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal
jurisdiction with respect to such action.
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). By its terms, § 1391 refers to
districts and not divisions. See Crumrine v. NEG Micon
USA, Inc., 104 F.Supp.2d 1123, 1125-26 (N. D. Iowa 2000)
(explaining that, because § 1391(a) establishes proper
venue in terms of districts rather than divisions, venue
requirements of § 1391(a) are satisfied if action is
filed in proper district). Obviously, the District of Idaho
was the proper district within which to file the Complaint.
Therefore, the requirements of § 1391(a) have been met.
District of Idaho is comprised of four divisions, each of
which covers certain specified counties. D. Idaho L. Civ. R.
3.1. The Local Rules do not provide a procedure for filing a
case within a particular division. Rather, Rule 3.1 states
that “[c]ases that have venue in one of the above
divisions will be assigned by the Clerk upon the filing of
the Complaint or petition to the appropriate division, unless
otherwise ordered by the presiding judge.” Id.
It is the policy of the Court that the Clerk of the Court
assign a case to the division in which the defendant resides,
which is determined from the address provided by the
plaintiff. In other words, had this case been filed in
federal court at the outset it would have been assigned to
the Eastern Division. When a case is removed from state court
to federal court, however, it is the policy of the Court to
file the action based upon ...