Nagy v. United Schutzhund Clubs of America
Nagy v. United Schutzhund Clubs of America
Trial Court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ZOLTAN NAGY, Case No. 19-cv-08459-MMC
9 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S 10 v. MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE; TRANSFERRING ACTION TO 11 UNITED SCHUTZHUND CLUBS OF EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI AMERICA, 12 Defendant. 13 14 Before the Court is defendant United Schutzhund Clubs of America’s (“USCA”) 15 “Motion to Transfer Venue,” filed October 27, 2020, by which USCA seeks to transfer the 16 instant action to the Eastern District of Missouri, wherein its sole office is located. Plaintiff 17 Zoltan Nagy (“Nagy”) has filed opposition, to which USCA has replied. The matter came 18 on regularly for hearing on December 4, 2020. Lauren E. Wertheimer of Lewis Brisbois 19 Bisgaard & Smith LLP appeared on behalf of USCA; James Mills of the Law Office of 20 James Mills appeared on behalf of Nagy. 21 Having considered the parties’ respective written submissions as well as the 22 arguments of counsel at the hearing, the Court, for the reasons discussed below and in 23 greater detail on the record at the hearing, finds transfer of the instant action to the 24 Eastern District of Missouri is appropriate. 25 At the outset, the Court notes that, although USCA failed to timely file a motion 26 under Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and thereby waived any 27 challenge to venue under
28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), the above-titled action, in the absence of 1 Specifically, no event relevant to the instant claims occurred in this district, nor does 2 USCA have any connection with this district. See
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (setting forth 3 venue requirements for civil actions subject to general venue statute); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e- 4 5(f)(3) (setting forth venue requirements for Title VII claims).1 5 Nevertheless, USCA has made a persuasive argument in support of transfer for 6 convenience under
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In that regard, the Court finds venue would 7 have been proper in the Eastern District of Missouri, where USCA resides and has its 8 headquarters, and, as discussed below, the relevant factors weigh in favor of transfer. 9 See Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc.,
211 F.3d 495, 498(9th Cir. 2000) (“requir[ing] the 10 court to weigh multiple factors in its determination whether transfer is appropriate in a 11 particular case”); Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co.,
805 F.2d 834, 843(9th 12 Cir. 1986) (setting forth “private and public interest factors affecting the convenience of 13 the forum”). 14 In particular, four factors weigh in favor of transfer, namely, (1) the convenience of 15 the witnesses, often considered the “most important factor,” and particularly the 16 convenience of non-party witnesses, see Martin v. Glob. Tel*Link Corp., No. 15-CV- 17 00449-YGR,
2015 WL 2124379, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2015), (2) the difference in the 18 costs of litigation in the two forums, and particularly “the cost of obtaining attendance of 19 willing witnesses,” see Decker Coal Co.,
805 F.2d at 843, (3) the ease of access to 20 sources of proof, and (4) the contacts relating to plaintiff’s cause of action in the chosen 21 forum, whereas three factors weigh against transfer, namely, (1) the state that is most 22 familiar with the governing law if, in addition to his federal claims, Nagy has viable claims 23 under California law, (2) plaintiff’s choice of forum, and (3) the availability of compulsory 24 process to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses, all of which, in this 25 instance, weigh only slightly in the balance.2 26 1 The only connection between the instant action and California is Nagy’s 27 residence, which has no bearing on whether venue, in the first instance, is proper. 1 Accordingly, the Motion to Transfer Venue is hereby GRANTED, and the instant 2 action is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Eastern District of Missouri. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 || Dated: December 9, 2020 . MAXINE M. CHESNEY 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12
13
16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 negotiated and executed, the respective parties’ contacts with the forum, any local interest in the controversy, and the relative court congestion and time of trial in each 2g || forum, weigh neither in favor of nor against transfer.
Reference
- Status
- Unknown