United States District Court, District of Columbia
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
VESKO BORISLAVOV ANANIEV, Plaintiff, Pro se, Santa Rosa, CA.
For ROSENTHAL WITHEM & ZEFF, MICHAEL D. ZEFF, Esq., MICHAEL L. WITHEM, Esq., ROBERT L. ROSENTHAL, Defendants: Mark D. Meyer, LEAD ATTORNEY, ROSENBERG & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Bethesda, MD.
For SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR SONOMA COUNTY, Defendant: Sharon Ingrid Theodore-Lewis, LEAD ATTORNEY, PATRICK HENRY, LLP, Lanham, MD.
For AURORA BANK, FSB, AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC, Defendants: Pavan I. Khoobchandani, LEAD ATTORNEY, AKERMAN SENTERFITT LLP, Washington, DC.
BERYL A. HOWELL, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Vesko Borislavov Ananiev, who is proceeding pro se, has brought two claims against eight named and ten unidentified " Doe" defendants allegedly involved
in the foreclosure of his Sonoma County, California home. The plaintiff seeks various relief, including a declaratory judgment with respect to the title of this California property and an injunction against any eviction from or foreclosure of the property on grounds that actions against the property violate his due process rights, have caused intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violate a consent judgment entered against multiple financial entities, including Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (" Wells Fargo" ), in an unrelated matter pending in this Court (" Unrelated Consent Judgment" ). 
Pending before the Court are four motions, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), (3), and (6), to dismiss this action for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue and failure to state a claim, by seven of the named defendants either individually or in groups as follows: (1) the Superior Court of California has moved to dismiss the complaint on all three grounds, see Super. Ct's Mem. in Supp. of Def.'s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 3-1, at 3-5 (" S.Ct. Mem." ); (2) the law firm of Rosenthal Withem & Zeff and three of its partners, Robert L. Rosenthal, Michael L. Withem, and Michael D. Zeff (collectively, the " Law Firm Defendants" ) have also moved to dismiss on all three grounds, see Law Firm Defs.' Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 5-1, at 4-6, 10-12 (" Law Firm Mem." );  and (3) Aurora Bank, FSB (" Aurora Bank" ) and Aurora Loan Services, LLC (" ALS" ) have moved to dismiss only on grounds of improper venue, see Aurora Bank & ALS's Mem. in Supp. of Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss or in the Alternative to Transfer Venue, ECF No. 9-1, at 3-5 (" Aurora Mem." ). For the reasons set forth below, the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint for improper venue are granted, and the Court finds that transfer in lieu of dismissal is not in the interest of justice. 
A. PLAINTIFF'S MORTGAGE
In 2004, the plaintiff obtained a mortgage in the amount of $511,200 from non-party International Home Capital Corporation (" IHCC" ), that was secured by a deed of trust on real property at 1243 and 1247 Kodiak Court, Santa Rosa, California (the " California Property" ). See Compl. Ex. E. (" Deed of Trust" ), ECF No. 1-1. Through subsequent transactions that occurred without the involvement of the plaintiff, IHCC transferred ownership of the mortgage to Wells Fargo, and ALS became the servicing agent with the purported " right to enforce the Note evidencing the debt, and  the right to receive payment of the debt for and on behalf of the owner of the debt." Compl., Exs. A, B, C (Letter, dated Nov. 24, 2010, from ALS's law firm Kahrl Wutscher LLP), ECF No. 1-1, at 2, 4. In May 2012, Aurora Bank " acquired title to the Property at a
Trustee's Sale following foreclosure proceedings," and, as discussed below, shortly thereafter sought to evict the plaintiff from the California Property. Compl., Ex D (Aurora Bank Complaint for unlawful Detainer, filed on June 22, 2012, in Superior Court of California, County of Sonoma), ECF No. 1-1, at 2 (" Unlawful Detainer Compl." ).
B. PRIOR LAWSUITS REGARDING CALIFORNIA PROPERTY
1. Plaintiff's Lawsuit in the Northern District of ...