Juan Chavez v. HUD Portability

Good Law
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaJanuary 24, 20252:25-cv-00927California853 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

DISCUSSION

The appropriate venue provision for Plaintiff’s claims under the Rehabilitation Act and the APA is found at 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1), which provides that, unless otherwise provided by

law, any civil action against a federal agency, such as HUD, must be brought in: any judicial district in which (A) a defendant in the action resides, (B) 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 (C) the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1). With respect to claims under the FTCA, they must be brought “in the judicial district where the plaintiff resides or wherein the act or omission complained of occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1402(b). HUD, a federal agency, would seem to reside throughout the United States of America and, therefore, it would appear that, under Section 1391(e)(1)(A), all of the federal district courts are proper venues for Plaintiff’s claims under the Rehabilitation Act and the APA. That being said, because it appears that the alleged events giving rise to these claims have occurred in Los Angeles,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.