Shen-Shampas v. Rabow et al
| California Northern District Court | |
| Judge: | Laurel Beeler |
| Case #: | 3:25-cv-04080 |
| Nature of Suit | 320 Torts - Personal Injury - Assault, Libel, & Slander |
| Cause | 28:1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander |
| Case Filed: | May 12, 2025 |
| Case in other court: | USDC - Southern District of New York, 1:25-cv-01802 |
| Last checked: Monday May 12, 2025 11:11 AM PDT |
|
Defendant
Michael Rabow
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Justin Sewell
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Becca Wallace
|
|
|
Plaintiff
John H. Shen-Shampas
650 West End Avenue
New York, NY 10025 |
GPO
Mar 13 2025
ORDER John H. Shen-Sampas, proceeding pro se, filed the instant suit on March 4, 2025. Doc. 1. In the Complaint, he alleges that that Michael Rabow, Justin Sewell, and Becca Wallace violated California Civil Code §§ 44-48.9 by publishing false statements regarding his "CV" submitted with his application for medical residency. Id. at 5, 6. Federal jurisdiction in this Court is asserted based on the Parties diversity of citizenship. Id. at 2. However, it is unclear from the Complaint whether venue is proper in this judicial district. A civil action may be brought in "a judicial district in which any defendant resides" or "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." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (1)-(2). "[I]f there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought," a civil action may be brought in "any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3). The Court notes that, according to the Complaint, Defendants are located in San Francisco, California, which is in the Northern District of California. Doc. 1 at 4. There is no suggestion in the record that a substantial part-or any-of the events giving rise to Plaintiff's claim occurred in the Southern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Moreover, the Complaint alleges that the [p]lace(s) of occurrence was San Francisco, California. Id. at 6. Courts are permitted to transfer a civil action to any other district "where it might have been brought," for "the convenience of parties and witnesses, and in the interest of justice[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In this case, the facts asserted by Plaintiff show that the case "might have been brought" in the Northern District of California. By no later than March 27, 2025, Plaintiff shall state, in writing, why this action should not be transferred there. It is SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 3/13/2025) (jca) |
|
|
GPO
Apr 28 2025
TRANSFER ORDER: The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and close the case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 4/28/2025) (mml) Transmission to Office of the Clerk of Court for processing. |
| Docket last updated: 3 hours ago |
| Monday, May 12, 2025 | ||
| 19 | 19
oth_evt
Clerk's Notice re: Consent or Declination
Mon 05/12 1:29 PM
CLERK'S NOTICE Re: Consent or Declination: Plaintiffs/Defendants shall file a consent or declination to proceed before a magistrate judge. Note that any party is free to withhold consent to proceed before a magistrate judge without adverse substantive consequences. The forms are available at:[LINK:http://cand.uscourts.gov/civilforms] . (Party/parties were also notified via telephone or email.) Consent/Declination due by 5/27/2025. (klh, COURT STAFF) Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) |
|
| 18 | 18
order
Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines
Mon 05/12 10:26 AM
Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Joint Case Management Statement due by 8/7/2025. Initial Case Management Conference set for 8/14/2025 at 11:00 AM in San Francisco - Videoconference Only. (tn, COURT STAFF) Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) |
|
| 17 | 17
transfer
Case Transferred In - District Transfer
Mon 05/12 10:21 AM
Case Transferred in from United States District Court for the Southern District of New York; Case Number 1:25-cv-01802-ER. Original file certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet received. Modified on 5/12/2025 (tn, COURT STAFF) |
|
| Monday, April 28, 2025 | ||
| 16 | 16
TRANSFER ORDER: The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and close the case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 4/28/2025) (mml) Transmission to Office of the Clerk of Court for processing.
|
|
| CASE TRANSFERRED OUT ELECTRONICALLY from the U.S.D.C. Southern District of New York to the United States District Court - District of Northern District of California. (mml) | ||
| Saturday, April 19, 2025 | ||
| 15 | 15
LETTER addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from John Shen-Sampas dated April 19, 2025 re: request a reschedule for the telephonic conference. Document filed by John H. Shen-Shampas.(ar)
|
|
| 14 | 14
LETTER addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from John Shen-Sampas dated 4/11/2025 re: understanding of March 13, 2025 Order. Document filed by John H. Shen-Shampas.(ar) (Main Document 14 replaced on 4/21/2025) (ar).
|
|
| Tuesday, April 15, 2025 | ||
| 13 | 13
ORDER Accordingly, the parties are hereby ORDERED to appear for a telephonic conference on May 7, 2025 at 10:30 a.m., so that Plaintiff may show cause why the Court should not dismiss this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 for failure to prosecute. The parties are directed to call (855) 244-8681, enter access code 2301 087 7354#, and press # again when prompted.It is SO ORDERED. (Telephone Conference set for 5/7/2025 at 10:30 AM before Judge Edgardo Ramos.) (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 4/15/2025) (jca)
|
|
| Friday, April 11, 2025 | ||
| 12 | 12
PROOF OF SERVICE of Summons and Complaint. Becca Wallace served on 3/25/2025, answer due 4/15/2025. Service was accepted by Violetta M-Receptionist. Document filed by John H. Shen-Shampas. (ar)
|
|
| 11 | 11
FIRST LETTER addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from Ronald A. Giller dated April 11, 2025 re: Clarity with respect to order of 3-13-25 & requesting a conference. Document filed by Michael Rabow, Justin Sewell..(Giller, Ronald)
|
|
| 10 | 10
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Ronald Andrew Giller on behalf of Michael Rabow, Justin Sewell..(Giller, Ronald)
|
|
| Thursday, March 20, 2025 | ||
| 9 | 9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. Justin Sewell served on 3/18/2025, answer due 4/8/2025. Service was accepted by Carlos Castillo Flores. Service was made by MAIL. Document filed by John H. Shen-Shampas..(ks)
|
|
| Thursday, March 13, 2025 | ||
| 8 | 8
ORDER John H. Shen-Sampas, proceeding pro se, filed the instant suit on March 4, 2025. Doc. 1. In the Complaint, he alleges that that Michael Rabow, Justin Sewell, and Becca Wallace violated California Civil Code §§ 44-48.9 by publishing false statements regarding his "CV" submitted with his application for medical residency. Id. at 5, 6. Federal jurisdiction in this Court is asserted based on the Parties diversity of citizenship. Id. at 2. However, it is unclear from the Complaint whether venue is proper in this judicial district. A civil action may be brought in "a judicial district in which any defendant resides" or "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." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (1)-(2). "[I]f there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought," a civil action may be brought in "any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3). The Court notes that, according to the Complaint, Defendants are located in San Francisco, California, which is in the Northern District of California. Doc. 1 at 4. There is no suggestion in the record that a substantial part-or any-of the events giving rise to Plaintiff's claim occurred in the Southern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Moreover, the Complaint alleges that the [p]lace(s) of occurrence was San Francisco, California. Id. at 6. Courts are permitted to transfer a civil action to any other district "where it might have been brought," for "the convenience of parties and witnesses, and in the interest of justice[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In this case, the facts asserted by Plaintiff show that the case "might have been brought" in the Northern District of California. By no later than March 27, 2025, Plaintiff shall state, in writing, why this action should not be transferred there. It is SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 3/13/2025) (jca)
|
|
| Tuesday, March 11, 2025 | ||
| 7 | 7
STANDING ORDER IN RE CASES FILED BY PRO SE PLAINTIFFS (See 24-MISC-127 Standing Order filed March 18, 2024). To ensure that all cases heard in the Southern District of New York are handled promptly and efficiently, all parties must keep the court apprised of any new contact information. It is a party's obligation to provide an address for service; service of court orders cannot be accomplished if a party does not update the court when a change of address occurs. Accordingly, all self-represented litigants are hereby ORDERED to inform the court of each change in their address or electronic contact information. Parties may[LINK:consent to electronic service] to receive notifications of court filings by email, rather than relying on regular mail delivery. Parties may also ask the court for[LINK:permission to file documents electronically] . Forms, including instructions for consenting to electronic service and requesting permission to file documents electronically, may be found by clicking on the hyperlinks in this order, or by accessing the forms on the courts website, nysd.uscourts.gov/forms. The procedures that follow apply only to cases filed by pro se plaintiffs. If the court receives notice from the United States Postal Service that an order has been returned to the court, or otherwise receives information that the address of record for a self-represented plaintiff is no longer valid, the court may issue an Order to Show Cause why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with this order. Such order will be sent to the plaintiffs last known address and will also be viewable on the court's electronic docket. A notice directing the parties' attention to this order shall be docketed (and mailed to any self-represented party that has appeared and has not consented to electronic service) upon the opening of each case or miscellaneous matter that is classified as pro se in the court's records. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 3/18/2024) (sac)
|
|
| CASE MANAGEMENT NOTE: For each electronic filing made in a case involving a self-represented party who has not consented to electronic service, the filing party must serve the document on such self-represented party in a manner permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2) (other than through the ECF system) and file proof of service for each document so served. Please see[LINK:Rule 9.2] of the courts ECF Rules & Instructions for further information. (sac) | ||
| Tuesday, March 04, 2025 | ||
| 6 | 6
SUMMONS ISSUED as to Becca Wallace. (sac)
|
|
| 5 | 5
SUMMONS ISSUED as to Justin Sewell. (sac)
|
|
| 4 | 4
SUMMONS ISSUED as to Michael Rabow. (sac)
|
|
| 3 | 3
PRO SE CONSENT TO RECEIVE ELECTRONIC SERVICE. The following party: John H. Shen-Shampas consents to receive electronic service via the ECF system. Document filed by John H. Shen-Shampas. (sac)
|
|
| 2 | 2
CIVIL COVER SHEET filed. (sac)
|
|
| 1 | 1
COMPLAINT against Michael Rabow, Justin Sewell, Becca Wallace, (Filing Fee: $405.00, Receipt Number 37654) Document filed by John H. Shen-Shampas. (sac)
|
|
| Case Designated ECF. (sac) | ||
| Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger is designated to handle matters that may be referred in this case. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(1) parties are notified that they may consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. Parties who wish to consent may access the necessary form at the following link:[LINK:https://nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2018-06/AO-3.pdf] . (sac) | ||