Unpublished Disposition, 872 F.2d 426 (9th Cir. 1989)Annotate this Case
William M. AU-YANG and Sabrina L. Au-Yang, Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.CITIBANK, N.A., Cititrust (Cayman), Ltd., A Jersey Company,Defendants-Appellees.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted* March 6, 1989.Decided March 14, 1989.
Before SNEED, FARRIS and PREGERSON, Circuit Judges.
William and Sabrina Au-Yang appeal the district court's dismissal of their action. The district court dismissed without prejudice on the ground of improper venue. The Au-Yang's contend that venue was proper in the Central District of California. The Au-Yang's also contend that even if venue was not proper, the district court abused its discretion by dismissing their action without prejudice rather than transferring the action to a proper venue. We affirm.
Although venue often involves significant questions of fact, the district court's determination of whether venue is proper on the basis of undisputed facts is a question of law reviewable de novo. See Central Valley Typographical Union No. 46 v. McClatchy Newspapers, 762 F.2d 741, 745 (9th Cir. 1985). We review for an abuse of discretion the district court's decision whether either to dismiss or transfer an improperly filed case. Id. (citing Cook v. Fox, 537 F.2d 370, 371 (9th Cir. 1976)).
Federal jurisdiction over this action "involving international or foreign banking" is conferred by 12 U.S.C. § 632. The Au-Yangs argue that jurisdiction is also proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity). We need not decide whether diversity of citizenship exists. 28 U.S.C. § 1391 provides:
(a) A civil action wherein jurisdiction is founded only on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in the judicial district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside, or in which the claim arose.
(b) A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship may be brought only in the judicial district where all defendants reside, or in which the claim arose, except as otherwise provided by law.
Because jurisdiction over this action is not founded solely on diversity, venue is proper only where all defendants reside or where the claim arose. Neither of the defendants resides in the Central District of California. Nor did the Au-Yangs claims arise in California. The only contact this action has with the Central District of California is that the Au-Yang's currently reside there. Venue was not proper in California.
28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) provides:
The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.
The Au-Yangs made no attempt to demonstrate to the district court reasons that transfer would be more just than dismissal. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to dismiss the action without prejudice.