Deem et al v. Baron et al, No. 2:2015cv00755 - Document 23 (D. Utah 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER-denying 13 Motion to Dismiss pr Transfer Case. Signed by Judge David Sam on 3/2/16. (jmr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Deem et al v. Baron et al Doc. 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION DARRELL L. DEEM, AN INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF OF HIS ROTH IRA #14459; DAVID G. LAW, AN INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF OF HIS ROTH IRA #11396; DJ PROPERTY SOLUTIONS, A UTAH LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; DEEM REALTY FUNDING, DEEM INVESTMENT COMPANY, JANINE LAW, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiffs, 2:15-CV-00755-DS v. TRACEY BARON, AN INDIVIDUAL; MICHELLE BARON, AN INDIVIDUAL; District Judge David Sam TURNING LEAF HOMES, AN OREGON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; RENX GROUP, AN OREGON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; BIG BLUE CAPITAL, TURNING LEAF ADVISORS, RENX GROUP II, CRIMSON INVESTMENT GROUP, Defendants. Defendants have moved the Court pursuant to FRCP Rule 12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) and/or 1406(a) to dismiss this case for improper venue or in the alternative to transfer it to the United States District Court for Oregon. They argue that all of the defendants and a majority of the witnesses, documents and other evidence are located in Oregon. If a case is filed in an improper venue, the Court is authorized to dismiss it, or to transfer it to the correct court. However, in this case, virtually all of the contracts between the parties contain language designating Utah as the venue for litigation. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) specifically authorizes venue in Dockets.Justia.com the “division to which all parties have consented.” Since the parties in this case have clearly selected Utah as the forum for litigation, Utah is the proper venue for this action. In their reply memorandum, the defendants move the Court to dismiss based on two new arguments: (1) lack of standing to sue, and (2) failure to join indispensable parties. However, as the defendants pointed out in the reply memorandum in support of their earlier motion to dismiss, DUCivR 7-1(b)(1)(A) prohibits the making of a motion in a response or reply memorandum. The pleadings and evidence having been considered, for the above reasons and for good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or Transfer Case is denied. DATED this 2nd day of March, 2016. BY THE COURT: DAVID SAM United States District Judge
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
