Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Konrath v. Majestic Star Casino

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

January 10, 2017

GREGORY KONRATH, Plaintiff,
v.
MAJESTIC STAR CASINO, Defendant.

          ORDER TRANSFERRING ACTION TO NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

          TANYA WALTON PRATT, JUDGE

         Plaintiff Gregory Konrath is incarcerated at the Westville Correctional Facility (“Westville”). He brings this civil action alleging that the Majestic Star Casino violated Illinois “Dram shop” law by providing him alcohol until he was grossly intoxicated.[1] He also alleges the defendant refused to provide him the Gamblers' Addicts Anonymous information he requested. He alleges that he is a citizen of Illinois and alleges jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

         Majestic Star Casino is located in Gary, Indiana, which lies in Lake County. Lake County is in the Northern District of Indiana. 28 U.S.C. § 94(a). Here, the alleged conduct giving rise to the claim occurred, and the plaintiff can be found, in the Northern District of Indiana. Under these circumstances, the appropriate venue for the action is the Northern District of Indiana. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1404.

         Mr. Konrath alleges that “[t]imely payment of the filing fee is not a judicial prerequisite.” Dkt. 1, p. 4. While that is true, the Court notes that Mr. Konrath has not paid the filing fee and he is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Konrath v. Bierzychudek, et al, 1:16-cv-3186-WTL-DKL (S.D. Ind. Dec. 29, 2016).

         The above action is now TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana at Hammond, Indiana.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.

---------

Notes:

[1] Although the plaintiff recites Illinois state law, because the alleged incidents occurred in Indiana, Indiana law would apply to any Indiana district court sitting in diversity. See Land v. Yamaha Motor Corp.272 F.3d 514, 516 (7th Cir. 2011) (“A federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction must ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.