Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
William Gardner, representing himself, sued in the Southern District of California on June 25, 2026. He named Ronit Urman and Urman Enterprises LLC (the Urman Defendants), Bank of America, N.A. (BANA), BOKF, N.A. (BOKF), and Burn Boot Camp. The complaint alleges that on February 23, 2024, a New Mexico state court in his domestic-relations case appointed a receiver over an estate covering the parties' community and separate property and income. It alleges that, relying solely on that order and without notice, each defendant froze, closed, confiscated, or diverted his money or property. BANA allegedly closed a credit card account, BOKF turned deposit funds over to the receiver, a tenant of his Albuquerque property paid rent to the receiver, and the Urman Defendants, his agent for a Scottsdale, Arizona property, turned over funds. These are allegations, and the court made no findings on them. The complaint pleads nine claims, including conversion, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, defamation, and negligence.
BOKF moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Urman Defendants moved under Rule 12(b)(2) through (6), including improper venue. BANA moved under Rule 12(b)(5) and (6). Gardner opposed only BANA's motion. He never responded to the Urman Defendants' motion, and the court noted that a local rule allows such a failure to be treated as consent. He later moved to transfer the case to the District of New Mexico. BOKF did not oppose, while BANA and the Urman Defendants did. He also sought leave to file a reply and more time to complete service.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the Urman Defendants' motion to dismiss for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3). Because venue was challenged, Gardner bore the burden of showing it was proper. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), Ronit Urman is domiciled in Arizona and the complaint places all defendants outside California, so no defendant's residence supported venue here. Under § 1391(b)(2), the court found no substantial events or property in the district. The complaint had asserted that his injury was felt at his California residence, but his transfer motion retracted that, acknowledging the conduct predated his California residency and was directed at him in New Mexico. The property at issue lies in Arizona and New Mexico. Section 1391(b)(3) did not apply because venue would be proper in the District of New Mexico.
The court then denied transfer to New Mexico under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), which gives it discretion to dismiss or transfer in the interest of justice. A New Mexico federal court order enjoins Gardner from initiating litigation there unless a licensed attorney signs the pleading or he first obtains permission to proceed pro se. The court reasoned that transfer would let him bypass those conditions. It also concluded that leave to amend would be futile because no facts could make this district a proper venue, adding that his failure to respond supported that conclusion.
The case was dismissed without prejudice to refiling in a different forum, and the clerk was directed to close it. BOKF's and BANA's motions were denied as moot, leave to file a reply was granted, and the extension-of-time request was denied as moot. The court did not reach the Urman Defendants' other Rule 12(b) arguments.
Key Takeaways
- Once a defendant challenges venue, the plaintiff must show it is proper, and Gardner did not respond to the Urman Defendants' motion.
- A plaintiff's own filings can undercut venue, as Gardner's transfer motion retracted the allegation that his injury occurred at his California residence.
- Section 1391(b)(3) is unavailable when another district, here New Mexico, is a proper venue under § 1391(b)(2).
- A court may decline to transfer under § 1406(a) when transfer would let a litigant sidestep filing restrictions imposed in the transferee district.
- The dismissal is without prejudice to refiling in a different forum, and the merits and the other jurisdictional and pleading arguments were not decided.
Why It Matters
The order applies the general venue statute to a dispute centered on a New Mexico receivership and property in Arizona and New Mexico. It refuses to treat the plaintiff's later California residency as a basis for venue. It is a district court order, not a published appellate opinion, so its value lies in persuasive reasoning and not in binding precedent.
In practice, the ruling decides nothing about the merits of the conversion, contract, or other claims. Any refiling must be in a proper forum. If Gardner refiles in federal court in New Mexico, the filing conditions described in the order would apply there, and this court did not decide how that court would handle a new filing.