Bow Hunting Skills, LLC et al v. Midway City Corporation

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
BOW HUNTING SKILLS, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs
v.
MIDWAY CITY CORPORATION,
Defendant
Case No.: 2:26-cv-03231-APG-BNW
Order Granting Motion to Transfer Case
to the District of Utah
[ECF No. 6]
The plaintiffs erroneously filed this case in this court when they intended to file it in the
District of Utah. See ECF Nos. 1; 3; 6. They request that I transfer the case to the District of
Utah.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a district court may dismiss a case that is filed in an improper
venue, or the court may, “in the interest of justice,” transfer the case to any district “in which it
could have been brought.” Section 1406(a)’s language “is amply broad enough to authorize the
transfer of cases, however wrong the plaintiff may have been in filing his case as to venue,
whether the court in which it was filed had personal jurisdiction over the defendants or not.”
Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463, 466 (1962). Factors to consider in determining whether
transfer is in the interest of justice include “whether the statute of limitations would otherwise
run, the convenience of parties and witnesses, and whether efficient and expeditious
administration of justice would be furthered.” Sherar v. Harless, 561 F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir.
1977). “Normally transfer will be in the interest of justice because normally dismissal of an
action that could be brought elsewhere is ‘time-consuming and justice-defeating.’” Miller v.
Hambrick, 905 F.2d 259, 262 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Goldlawr, Inc., 369 U.S. at 467 and
evaluating similar “interest of justice” language in another transfer statute).
Case 2:26-cv-01020-JCB Document 7 Filed 10/15/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 1
of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2
I grant the motion to transfer. It was apparent that the plaintiffs intended to file this
matter originally in the District of Utah, and their motion confirms it was a technical error that
led to it being filed here. The action could have been brought in Utah because the defendant is a
municipality in that state and the property that the dispute revolves around lies in Utah. See ECF
No. 1 at 5-6; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1), (b)(2). The interests of justice are served by transfer
rather than dismissal to avoid any statute of limitations arguments. Additionally, the efficient
and expeditious administration of justice is furthered where the defendant has yet to be served
and has suffered no prejudice from this technical error.
I THEREFORE ORDER that the plaintiffs’ motion to transfer venue (ECF No. 6) is
GRANTED. The clerk of court is instructed to transfer this case to the United States District
Court for the District of Utah, and to close this case in this court.
DATED this 15th day of October, 2026.
ANDREW P. GORDON
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-01020-JCB Document 7 Filed 10/15/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 2