The Ninth Circuit denies mandate relief in this case despite the fact that the district court committed clear error in transferring this case to the E.D. Cal. under 28 USC 1404.  Since that section permits transfer only to a district in which the case might have been brought.  This case could not have been brought in the E.D. Cal. because none of the defendants resided there and none of the events giving rise to the named plaintiff’s individual claims occurred there.  Nevertheless, mandate relief was denied because the plaintiff could not show she was substantially prejudiced by the transfer.  Her case had been stayed by the transferee court pending resolution of another previously filed putative class action raising the same claims against the same defendants.  As the transferor court had indicated that but for transfer, it too would have stayed Bozic’s case, she could not show that transfer had harmed her.  If the disposition of the first-filed case did not fully resolve Bozic’s claims, she could then apply for retransfer and, if it were denied, then petition for a mandate at that time.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Friedland, J.); April 25, 2018; 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 10423