1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HEIDI HALLENBERG, AND BRANDON Case No. 1:24-cv-01486-JLT-BAM WALKER, 12 ORDER DENYING DARRICK WALKER’S Plaintiffs, MOTION TO TRANSFER UNDER 28 U.S.C. 13 § 1404(a) v. 14 (Doc. 5) DARRICK WALKER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Heidi Hallenberg and Brandon Walker allege their brother Darrick Walker embezzled and 18 misappropriated funds from BDH Group, LLC, an entity equally owned by Brandon, Heidi, and 19 Darrick. Defendant seeks transfer of the action to the United States District Court, District of 20 Wyoming pursuant to

(a). (Doc. 5.) The Court deemed the motion suitable for 21 decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), and vacated the hearing set for 22 February 14, 2025. (Doc. 15.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion to transfer 23 will be denied. 24 I. BACKGROUND AND ALLEGATIONS 25 Plaintiffs are California residents. They initiated this action on October 29, 2024, in 26 Fresno County Superior Court. (Doc. 2.) Defendant, a Wyoming resident, removed the matter to 27 this Court on December 5, 2025. (Id.) The operative complaint alleges as follows: 28 The Walker family has been in the farming business for generations. Plaintiff Brandon 1 Walker is the eldest child of Jim and Sharon Walker. Defendant Darrick Walker is the second 2 child, and Plaintiff Heidi Walker is the third child. The family farms across the Central Valley 3 through a number of related entities. (Doc. 2, Ex. A, Compl. ¶ 8.) 4 Defendant BDH Group, LLC, (“BDH”) is an entity equally owned by Brandon, Derrick, 5 and Heidi as its members. BDH originated from a small real estate company called B & D 6 Walker Real Estate, LLC, established around 2006. Initially, BDH purchased five lots in Merced, 7 with one used to a create a larger property to rent to Frito Lay Corporation. (Compl. ¶ 9.) 8 Following the dissolution of B & D Walker Real Estate, LLC, its assets were transferred to BDH, 9 which was created to manage the non-farming real estate investments, with the intention of 10 diversifying and reducing risk. Each sibling—Brandon, Darrick, and Heidi—holds a one-third 11 share in BDH. (Id. ¶ 10.) As time progressed, BDH became a 50% owner of WB Capital 12 Partners, LLC (“WBCP”), with the remaining 50% owned by David and Marilyn Britz or their 13 entities. WBCP acquired two completed FedEx Ground facilities: one in Youngstown, Ohio, and 14 another in Salem, Oregon. (Id. ¶ 11.) 15 Subsequent ventures included WBCP2, which was involved in acquiring a portion of a 16 FedEx building in Grand Junction, Colorado. Brandon was an individual investor in this venture. 17 Given Darrick’s background as a financial investor and broker, Plaintiffs deferred to Darrick to 18 handle all of BDH’s finances. For the operation of BDH, Plaintiffs allegedly were so historically 19 and entirely reliant on Darrick that large transactions took place without Plaintiffs’ knowledge or 20 consent. For instance, Brandon first became aware of the Colorado building’s sale in Spring 21 2023, which was significantly after its sale. At that time, Darrick claimed to have distributed 22 payouts from the sale. To date, Brandon and Heidi remain unable to fully account for all 23 distributions. (Id. ¶ 12.) 24 Another entity, WBCP3, was formed to purchase a Walgreens drug store in the greater 25 Chicago area, with BDH having some undetermined role with the Britzs holding at a 50% stake. 26 This entity was short-lived, lasting about two to three years before being sold, with questionable 27 accounting practices and no oversight. Brandon still lacks a complete accounting of the 28 enterprise. (Compl. ¶ 13.) 1 WBCP4 was established to acquire a portion of a FedEx Ground building in Fresno, 2 California, involving several investors, including the three individual principals of BDH (about 3 40%) and the Britzs (about 45%). The building was sold before Fed Ex could exercise its 4 expansion option, and the funds rolled over into a Walgreens located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. 5 Following, Heidi and Brandon had expressed their desire to exit the partnership with the Britz 6 family but were not consulted about Darrick’s subsequent investment in Idaho farmland with the 7 Britzs with BDH money. Neither Heidi nor Brandon authorized or knew in advance of the 8 purchase of the Idaho farmland with the proceeds of the sale. WBCP4 is owned individually by 9 Darrick, Heidi, and Brandon. (Compl. ¶14.) 10 As time passed, Darrick operated and controlled the finances of BDH as if they were 11 100% his own even where Plaintiffs objected. This recently extended to the two partnerships: (1) 12 B & D Walker Farms, a California general partnership of which Darrick and Brandon are the sole 13 partners, which owns properties in Fresno and Merced counties, some of which are planted with 14 almonds; and (2) B&D Walker Farms and Heidi Walker, a California general partnership, which 15 owns property in Fresno County planted with pistachios. (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 4, 15.) As Plaintiffs 16 recently came to learn, Darrick had instructed principals at the Wonderful Processing Company, 17 the company processing the partnership crops, to divert funds away from the partnership accounts 18 to an account solely controlled by Darrick. Darrick did the same things for the almonds by 19 contacting the Almond Company and telling them not to remit payment to partnership accounts 20 where either Brandon or Heidi had access. As a result, the partnership operations will be 21 dramatically impacted as the capital needed to fund those operations has recently been diverted 22 away from those operations by Darrick. (Id. ¶ 15.) 23 Further, as was recently discovered and then confirmed, Darrick treated BDH’s bank 24 account, funds, and resources, as his own personal funds by, among other things, engaging in 25 significant unauthorized spending to the tune of nearly ten million dollars. Absent consent, and 26 which was only discovered in 2023, Darrick used BDH funds to finance several of his other pet 27 projects and companies, such as Central Valley Ag Partners (1 through 11) and CVAP Ranch, 28 LLC. At Darrick’s direction, hundreds of thousands of dollars from BDH were diverted towards 1 development of a grape vineyard for which BDH had no direct financial interest. (Compl. ¶ 16.) 2 As was discovered in 2023, Darrick has engaged in numerous unauthorized transactions 3 and personal expenditures of BDH funds, including unauthorized loans to his wife and his 4 children’s trusts. The following demonstrate some of the discovered misuses of BDH resources: 5 A) Darrick’s Unauthorized Loans. The loans were not listed on the BDH books until 6 after Plaintiffs’ discovery, and appear to have no direct connection to BDH and 7 represent unauthorized advances for Darrick’s personal and/or unrelated businesses. 8 After their discovery, these loans were listed on BDH’s books. 9 B) Darrick’s Unauthorized Personal Expenses (partial list): 10 - Property taxes for Darrick’s personal homes; 11 - Automobile expenses for Darrick’s children; 12 - Personal travel via private plane; 13 - Insurance unrelated to BDH assess or activities; 14 - Supplies for agricultural land not owned by BDH; and 15 - Legal fees unrelated to BDH’s business. 16 C) Darrick’s Unauthorized Investments in Other Businesses:

17 - Brookfield: Approximately $500,000. Plaintiffs did not authorize or know in advance about the transaction. 18 - Semios: Approximately $1,000,000 invested into an unknown enterprise with 19 unknown conditions and terms. Plaintiffs did not authorize or know about this transaction. 20 - Walker Britz Capital Partners (“WBCP”), a joint venture between BDH and Britzs, 21 each owning 50%. WBCP purchased approximately 560 acres of pistachios. Plaintiffs did not authorize the transaction or know about it until after the fact. 22 23 (Compl. ¶ 17.) 24 As first discovered in 2023, Darrick’s average annualized unauthorized use and personal 25 expenses taken out of BDH counted in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Uses ranged from 26 personal taxes on luxury personal properties to private jet travel and ski trips with friends, among 27 others. In misappropriating funds, Darrick retained a disproportionate share of BDH’s ongoing 28 value. (Compl. ¶ 18.) 1 Plaintiffs allege that “what eventually tipped off the many years of embezzlement was 2 ultimately an unauthorized loan and a diligent banker.” (Compl. ¶ 19.) Fresno Madera Farm 3 Credit is an agricultural lender and Jenhi Ciapponi has historically served as the banker for the 4 Walker entities. On Tuesday, September 5, 2023, Jenhi Ciapponi requested signatures from 5 Brandon and Heidi around 9:00 a.m. for a loan that Darrick had applied for absent Plaintiffs’ 6 knowledge. Plaintiffs asked about the loan and indicated they had not authorized such a loan. 7 Later that day, at approximately 3:30 p.m., Jenhi informed Brandon that she had already received 8 their signatures. Brandon promptly called Jenhi, and reported that neither he nor Heidi had 9 signed the application, nor did they consent to the loan nor to be personally bound by its terms. 10 Jenhi then indicated that she had received their signatures via email from Darrick. (Id. ¶ 19.) 11 Brandon and Heidi requested and received copies of the purported signatures, which were forged. 12 At approximately 3:45 to 4:00 p.m., Brandon notified Jenhi that the signatures were fraudulent. 13 (Id. ¶ 20.) 14 On September 13, 2023, at approximately 9:00 a.m., Darrick entered the farm office using 15 Jim’s code to disable the alarm, which Brandon did not initially know. Brandon arrived at the 16 office at 9:07 a.m. and found himself in an ambush-style meeting that Darrick had orchestrated. 17 (Compl. ¶ 21.) Darrick wanted to discuss the WBCP, LLC crop loan and its history, and 18 convince Brandon not to report the bank fraud. As captured on the ring camera in the office, 19 Darrick expressed that he would lose his securities license if his forgeries on bank loans and 20 applications were discovered. Brandon informed Darrick that Jenhi Ciappoini had contacted him, 21 and told him everything that had happened. Darrick pleaded with Brandon to please invent a lie 22 to save him. Brandon refused. Darrick then proposed a meeting among Brandon, Darrick, and 23 Heidi to resolve those issues Darrick had created and to prepare necessary documents. (Id. ¶ 22.) 24 In this time period, Plaintiffs allege that they began to first discover some of Darrick’s 25 alleged embezzlement along with the extreme degree to which Darrick had gone to hide it across 26 many companies and confusing journal entries. (Compl. ¶ 23.) 27 On September 13, 2023, at approximately 3:00 p.m., Jim Walker confronted Brandon 28 about the “huge mess.” Brandon informed Jim that Jim did not know the facts, specifically that 1 Darrick had forged signatures for both Brandon and Heidi on loan applications, which was the 2 root cause of the problem. Brandon told Jim that Plaintiffs were just discovering a vast array of 3 accounting improprieties which appeared to be theft to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. As 4 it turns out, Darrick forged Plaintiffs signatures on many documents including on trust 5 documents. (Compl. ¶ 24.) When Brandon raised the forgeries and the theft, Jim claimed that 6 Darrick had made Plaintiffs money and Plaintiffs were just ungrateful. Plaintiffs allege that Jim, 7 who is elderly, had and has been manipulated by Darrick against both Heidi and Brandon. Jim 8 criticized Plaintiffs’ contributions and expressed feelings of betrayal that Plaintiffs would not turn 9 a blind eye to theft, embezzlement, and bank fraud, which Plaintiffs allege is inconsistent with 10 Jim’s character. (Id. ¶ 25.) 11 Out of respect for their father and to avoid a lawsuit, the siblings entered into a tolling 12 agreement through counsel to resolve the issues out of court. After months of informal 13 discussions, Darrick allegedly became emboldened and started to claim, falsely, that Plaintiffs 14 themselves had engaged in wrongdoing. Plaintiffs allege that such a claim is provably false as 15 solely Darrick maintained control over their entities and their accounting. Darrick also instructed 16 third-party processors to divert money away from both partnership banks to ones Darrick had 17 100% control over at UBS bank. Plaintiffs further allege that it came to a point where Plaintiffs 18 had to ask for Darrick’s consent to obtain funds in any amount, including 20 dollars. Darrick now 19 reportedly claims that Plaintiffs took money from farming entities in a non-authorized fashion, 20 which Plaintiffs claim is false. For these reasons, Plaintiffs assert that they need, but do not have 21 full access to the following farm entities, which are named in this lawsuit to both provide an 22 accounting and also so that Plaintiffs’ interests may be sold and/or those entities dissolved: (1) B 23 & D Walker Farms: Owned by Brandon and Darrick Walker, it includes 160 acres of mature 24 almonds, the land on another 160 acres (non the trees or improvements), 320 acres of row crop 25 land, and leases additional land. (2) B & D Walker Farms and Heidi Walker: This partnership 26 includes 50% ownership by B & D Walker Farms and 50% by Heidi Walker (collectively 27 “Partnerships” or “California partnerships.”) (Comp. ¶ 26.) 28 Plaintiffs, individually and through counsel, have met with Darrick on multiple occasions 1 to secure Darrick’s return of allegedly embezzled BDH funds. While Darrick reportedly has 2 acknowledged having misappropriated BDH’s funds, he has failed to return the funds, and instead 3 has insisted that unrelated transactions across other entities excuse his conduct and/or should 4 count as offset. Plaintiffs claim that they are excused from making any further demand on BDH 5 as Darrick solely controls BDH, solely controls the accounting, solely controls the bank accounts, 6 has forged Plaintiffs’ names on numerous documents, and refuses to return the money. Plaintiffs 7 contend that despite being legally excused from having to make such a demand that may 8 otherwise conform with California Corporations Code § 17709.02, Plaintiffs tried in vain on 9 October 7, 2024, and sent a § 17709.02 written demand letter seeking that Darrick agree to return 10 and reimburse the unauthorized personal expenses and loans and unwind a transaction taken in 11 excess of his authority. In response, through counsel, Darrick declined to take action and 12 declined having engaged in any wrongdoing, making any further demands futile. (Compl. ¶ 27.) 13 Plaintiffs forward the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty against 14 Defendant Darrick Walker; (2) Receivership against Defendant BDH and Partnerships; (3) 15 Preliminary and permanent injunction against defendants; (4) Dissolution of Partnerships and 16 BDH; (5) Accounting of Partnerships and BDH; (6) Violation of Penal Code § 496(a) against 17 Defendant Darrick Walker. (See generally Compl.) 18 Defendant Darrick Walker filed the instant motion to transfer venue to the United States 19 District Court, District of Wyoming on January 6, 2025,1 along with a request for judicial notice 20 (Docs. 5, 5-3.) Defendant contends that this action should be transferred to the District of 21 Wyoming because Plaintiffs improperly seek to force him to litigate claims in California that are 22 governed by Wyoming law, made against a Wyoming resident and a Wyoming company with its 23 principal place of business located in Wyoming. Defendant further contends that the complaint 24 fails to establish factual allegations that California courts have any legitimate interest in hearing a 25 family business dispute intrinsically tried to Wyoming. Defendant argues that transferring the 26

27 1 Defendant subsequently filed a notice of errata indicating that the incorrect exhibits were attached to Defendant’s supporting declaration. Defendant therefore requested that the Court disregard the exhibits 28 originally submitted and replace them with the exhibits included with the notice. (Doc. 6.) 1 action to Wyoming will serve the interest of justice and convenience of the parties because the 2 claims are subject to Wyoming law, the majority of witnesses are located in or around Wyoming, 3 the relevant BDH business records are stored in Wyoming, and all of the corporate decisions 4 subject to the dispute were made in Wyoming. (Doc. 5-1 at 2.) 5 Plaintiffs opposed the motion to transfer on January 23, 2025. (Doc. 7.) Plaintiffs assert 6 that two out of three entities at issue in this case are California entities, Plaintiffs are California 7 residents—with Defendant himself having a home and business here, the important witnesses 8 relevant to the claims in this case are almost exclusively in California, the claims are subject to 9 California law, and the harm took place in California as to California loans and businesses. (Doc. 10 7 at 2.) Defendant replied on February 3, 2025. (Doc. 12.) 11 II. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 12 The Court may take judicial notice of a fact that “is not subject to reasonable dispute 13 because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be 14 accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be 15 questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). 16 Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice of (1) The Articles of Organization 17 of BDH filed on December 4, 2012, with the Office of the Secretary of State of the State of 18 Wyoming (Exhibit A); (2) The content of the Certificate of Merger of BDH issued on January 10, 19 2013, by the Office of the Secretary of State of the State of Wyoming (Exhibit B); (3) The content 20 of the Certificate of Merger of BDH filed on May 6, 2013, with the Office of the Secretary of 21 State of the State of California (Exhibit C). (Doc. 5-3.) A court may take judicial notice of 22 public documents, including Certificates of Merger and Articles of Organization. See Gutierrez 23 v. Graphic Packaging Int'l, LLC, No. CV 22-6945-MWF (MAAX),

, at *1 24 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2023) (“The Certificate of Merger is a public document, and its authenticity 25 can be accurately and readily determined from the Delaware Secretary of State website . . . . 26 Therefore, the Court takes judicial notice of its contents.”); Kaiju Sushi Corp. v. Pac. Emps. Ins. 27 Co., No. CV 21-6978 PA (AFMx),

, at *2 n.2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2022) 28 (taking judicial notice of a Certificate of Merger filed with the California Secretary of State); 1 Natomas Gardens Inv. Grp. LLC v. Sinadinos, No. CIV. S-08-2308 LKK/EFB,

4352842, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2011) (taking judicial notice of Articles of Organization 3 filed with California Secretary of State). Exhibits A and B are documents filed with the Secretary 4 of the State of Wyoming, and Exhibit C is a document filed with the Secretary of the State of 5 California. Accordingly, the Court will take judicial notice of Exhibits A, B, and C. 6 Defendant also requests that the Court take judicial notice that the driving distance from 7 Wilson, Wyoming to Fresno, California is 991 miles based on Google maps (Exhibit D). (Doc 5- 8 3.) Courts in the Ninth Circuit have taken judicial notice of Google Maps and its satellite images 9 as to the distance between two points. GS Holistic, LLC v. Ashes Plus Nine, No. 22-CV-07101- 10 YGR (LJC),

, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2024) (collecting cases); see also 11 Gastelum v. Pinnacle Hotel Circle LP, NO. 21-CV-1458 JLS (DEB),

, at * 2 12 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2022) (taking judicial notice of a printout directly from Google Maps). Exhibit 13 D is a printout from Google Maps showing the driving distance between Fresno, California and 14 Wilson, Wyoming. Accordingly, the Court will take judicial notice of Exhibit D. 15 Finally, Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice of Plaintiffs’ complaint 16 against Defendant filed on October 29, 2024, in Fresno County Superior Court (Exhibit E). (Doc. 17 5-3.) Upon removal, the complaint was filed on the docket of this Court. (See Ex. A to Doc. 2.) 18 “The records of court proceedings cannot reasonably be questioned, and judicial notice may be 19 taken of the Court’s record and docket.” Roman v. Amazon.com Servs., LLC, No. 1:21-cv-0667 20 JLT,

, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2021) (citations omitted). Accordingly, the 21 Court will take judicial notice of the complaint. 22 In sum, Defendant’s request to take judicial notice of the above-mentioned documents is 23 granted. 24 III. MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE 25 A. Legal Standard 26 Pursuant to

(a), “a district court may transfer any civil action to any other 27 district or division where it might have been brought” for the convenience of parties and 28 witnesses and in the interest of justice. The purpose of § 1404(a) is “to prevent the waste of time, 1 energy, and money and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary 2 inconvenience and expense.” Van Dusen v. Barrack,

(1964). 3 District courts employ a two-step analysis when determining whether to transfer an action. 4 Mazik v. Kaiser Permanente, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-00559-DAD-JDP,

, at *5 (E.D. 5 Cal. June 14, 2024); see also Park v. Dole Fresh Vegetables, Inc.,

, 1093 6 (N.D. Cal. 2013). “A court must first consider the threshold question of whether the case could 7 have been brought in the forum to which the moving party seeks to transfer the case.” Park, 964 8 F. Supp. 2d at 1093; see also Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 1985). 9 “Once the party seeking transfer has made this showing, district courts have discretion to consider 10 motions to change venue based on an ‘individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience 11 and fairness.’” Park,

(quoting Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487

(1988)). 13 Among the non-exclusive factors a district court may consider in determining whether a 14 transfer is warranted for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice 15 are: (1) the plaintiff’s choice of forum, (2) the respective parties’ contacts with the forum, (3) 16 contacts relating to the plaintiff’s cause of action in the chosen forum, (4) differences in the costs 17 of litigation in the two forums, (5) the availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of 18 unwilling non-party witnesses, (6) ease of access to sources of proof, (7) the location where 19 relevant agreements, if any, were negotiated and executed, and (8) the state that is most familiar 20 with the governing law. Randles v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, No. 1:24-CV-0177-KES-SKO, 2024

, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2024) (citing Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc.,

495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000)). A court also may consider “the administrative difficulties flowing 23 from court congestion ... [and] the ‘local interest in having localized controversies decided at 24 home.’” Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co.,

(9th Cir. 1986). 25 (citation omitted). 26 B. Discussion and Analysis 27 At the first step of the transfer analysis, Plaintiffs do not dispute that this action could 28 have been brought in the District of Wyoming. (See generally Doc. 7.) Accordingly, the Court 1 moves to the second step and considers whether transfer is warranted for the convenience of the 2 parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice. 3 1. Plaintiffs’ choice of forum 4 Plaintiffs argue that missing from Defendant’s analysis of the factors for venue transfer is 5 the substantial deference shown to a plaintiff’s choice of forum. (Doc. 7 at 6.) “[G]reat weight is 6 generally accorded plaintiff’s choice of forum . . . .” Lou v. Belzberg,

(9th Cir. 7 1987). However, “the weight given to the plaintiff's choice of forum can be diminished if: (1) the 8 plaintiff does not reside in the forum, (2) the transaction giving rise to the litigation did not occur 9 in the forum, (3) the forum was not the plaintiff's first choice, or (4) the plaintiff seeks to 10 represent a class. Sims v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 19-CV-07551-RS,

, at 11 *7 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2020) (citing Park,

). Two of the exceptions are 12 applicable here. 13 First, the Eastern District of California was not Plaintiffs’ first choice of forum. Plaintiffs 14 filed the case in Fresno County Superior Court, and Defendant removed it. A plaintiff’s choice of 15 forum is given less weight when the case has been removed from the state court. See Sims, 2020

, at *7 (indicating weight given to the plaintiff’s choice of forum diluted, in part, 17 because federal district was not plaintiff’s first choice of forum as case was removed from state 18 court); see also Gomes v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., No. 22-cv-6051-AB (KKx),

, 19 at *5 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2023) (concluding “deference owed Plaintiff's chosen forum is 20 diminished by the reality that this case was removed to federal court, such that Plaintiff already 21 finds himself outside his preferred venue”); D.C. v. Thillot, No. 2:20-CV-11765-SK,

3185071, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 12, 2021) (indicating “[p]laintiffs’ choice of forum lost some of 23 its weight when [defendant] removed case to federal court, thereby depriving them of their 24 originally chosen—state court—forum”). 25 Second, the factual allegations in the complaint primarily involve the operation and 26 control of BDH, a Wyoming business entity, and transactions and business decisions conducted 27 by Defendant in Wyoming. These allegations include: Defendant operating and controlling the 28 finances of BDH as if they were 100% his own (Compl. ¶ 15); Defendant treating BDH’s 1 account, funds, and resources, as his personal funds, engaging in unauthorized spending (Id. ¶ 2 16); and Defendant engaging in unauthorized transactions and personal expenditures of BDH 3 funds, including loans to his wife and his children’s trusts (Id. ¶ 17). “If the operative facts have 4 not occurred within the forum and the forum has no interest in the parties or subject matter, [the] 5 choice is entitled to only minimal consideration.” Lou,

. 6 Notwithstanding that the operative facts generally have not occurred in the Eastern 7 District of California, the complaint includes additional factual allegations involving events 8 occurring in the Eastern District of California. These allegations include: Jenhi Ciappoini 9 requesting signatures from Brandon and Heidi on September 5, 2023, for a loan that Darrick had 10 applied for absent Plaintiffs’ knowledge, Ms. Ciappoini later informing Brandon that she had 11 received their signatures, which were forgeries, Brandon and Heidi receiving copies of the 12 purported signatures, and Brandon notifying Ms. Ciappoini that the signatures were forgeries 13 (Compl. ¶¶ 19-20); Darrick and Brandon meeting in the farm office on September 13, 2023, 14 Darrick expressing that he would lose his securities licenses if his forgeries on bank loans and 15 applications were discovered, and Darrick pleading with Brandon to invent a lie to save him, 16 which Brandon refused (Id. ¶¶ 21-22); and Jim Walker confronting Brandon on September 13, 17 2023 (Id. ¶¶ 24-25). Further, the harms caused by Defendant’s alleged misconduct were suffered 18 by Plaintiffs in California, and Plaintiffs seek receivership, dissolution, and an accounting of the 19 partnerships, B & D Walker Farms and B & D Walker Farms and Heidi Walker (Id. ¶¶ 26, 33-35, 20 40-42, 43-45). 21 Taken together, the deference afforded the choice of forum is diminished. This factor 22 therefore weighs only minimally against transfer. 23 2. Parties’ contacts with the forum and contacts relating to Plaintiffs’ causes of 24 action 25 Defendant argues that his and BDH’s contact with Wyoming is well-established. 26 Defendant is a Wyoming resident, he has formed several companies there, and has made 27 Wyoming his long-term home. (Doc. 5-2, Declaration of Darrick Walker (“Darrick Decl.”) ¶¶ 28 I.3, II.A.1.) Further, BDH was formed in 2012 as a Wyoming limited liability company as 1 demonstrated by BDH’s Articles of Organization, and its principal place of business is located in 2 Wilson, Wyoming. (Id. ¶¶ I.3, II.A.3, 5 and Doc. 6, Ex. A.) Defendant additionally asserts that 3 BDH is not qualified to do business in California, and has no assets or operations in Fresno 4 County, and all of its records are housed in a storage facility in Wyoming. (Doc. 5-1 at 3-4; 5 Darrick Decl. ¶¶ II.A.3, 5, II.C.1 and Doc. 6, Ex. C.) 6 Plaintiffs counter that Defendant has personal and substantial contacts with Fresno and 7 with California in general, noting Defendant has a residence in Newport Beach that he stays at on 8 a near monthly basis, he pays property taxes and has business offices in both Danville and Fresno, 9 and he operates a second Central Valley Ag office in Fresno. Additionally, Defendant frequently 10 makes trips to California to manage personal and business matters in Fresno. (Doc. 7-1, 11 Declaration of Brandon Walker (“Brandon Decl.”) ¶ 4). In contrast, Plaintiffs indicate that they 12 have no personal contact with Wyoming. They do not own residences there and do not work 13 there. (Brandon Decl. ¶¶ 2-3; Doc. 7-2, Declaration of Heidi Hallenberg (“Heidi Decl.”) ¶¶ 2-3.) 14 Rather, they both live in Fresno and oversee day-to-day operations of the family’s enterprise, 15 including the two California partnerships’ California-based farms. (Brandon Decl. ¶ 2; Heidi 16 Decl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiffs argue that Defendant points to only one of three of Plaintiffs’ business 17 interests named in this case, i.e., BDH, which ignores the focus of the claims in this lawsuit and 18 the other entities which all pertain to California.2 (Doc. 7 at 17.) 19 “Transfer is not appropriate when it merely shifts the burden of litigating in a distant or 20 otherwise disfavored forum from the defendant to the plaintiff.” A.F.P. v. United States, No. 21 1:21-cv-00780-DAD-EPG,

, at *5 (E.D. Cal. July 12, 2022) (citing Mitchell v. 22 1Force Gov’t Sols., LLC, No. 2:18-cv-07612-PSG-SK,

, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 23 29, 2018)). Plaintiffs and Defendant both have contacts with Fresno and the Eastern District of 24 California—with Plaintiffs residing here, and Defendant, at a minimum, maintaining an office 25 here—but only Defendant has contact with Wyoming. Because Plaintiffs reside in this district, 26 2 Defendant contends that these partnerships should be disregarded for purposes of venue, noting that Plaintiffs allege 27 no direct causes of action against them and claiming they are sham defendants. (Doc. 5-1 at 2, 4.) Plaintiffs admit that the partnerships are being sued derivatively, which matters as to whether any given venue is proper. (Doc. 7 at 28 3.) 1 and do not work or reside in Wyoming, the convenience of the parties weighs against transfer to 2 another forum. 3 However, the crux of this action has less to do with this district. As discussed above, the 4 material allegations in Plaintiffs’ complaint concern BDH and conduct and actions taken by 5 Defendant involving BDH outside of California, largely in the District of Wyoming. Defendant 6 has presented evidence that he resides in Wyoming and BDH is a Wyoming limited liability 7 company with its principal place of business in Wyoming. Defendant also asserts that “a 8 substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in Wilson, Wyoming 9 since [Defendant] made all corporate decisions from his office there.” (Doc. 5-1 at 6; Darrick 10 Decl. ¶ 3.) On balance, because the bulk of the alleged conduct occurred outside of California, 11 with certain exceptions previously discussed, this factor weighs in favor of transfer. 12 3. Location of where relevant agreements were negotiated and executed and 13 ease of access to evidence 14 Defendant notes that BDH’s corporate documents, financial transactions, tax filings and 15 business records, are all maintained in Wyoming. (Darrick Dec. ¶ 5; Doc. 12 at 7.) Further, BDH 16 is involved in several business ventures in Wyoming, including WB Timber, LLC, and Defendant 17 regularly worked with notaries in Wyoming to complete transactional documents. (Doc. 5-1 at 7- 18 9.) This factor weighs somewhat in favor of transfer. 19 Plaintiffs acknowledge that BDH’s Wyoming office has copies of relevant documents, but 20 also indicate that “BDH’s accountants in Fresno—Moss Adams— no doubt have copies as well.” 21 (Doc. 7 at 14.). Plaintiffs argue, however, that the ease of access to documents does not weigh 22 heavily in the transfer analysis given that advances in technology have made it easy for 23 documents to be transferred to different locations. (Id.) 24 As suggested by Plaintiffs, “[e]ase of access to evidence is generally not a predominate 25 concern in evaluating whether to transfer venue because ‘advances in technology have made it 26 easy for documents to be transferred to different locations.’” Randles,

, *5 27 (quoting Byler v. Deluxe Corp.,

(S.D. Cal. 2016)). The location of 28 evidence is not a significant consideration because documentary evidence related to this case can 1 be reproduced and transmitted electronically to this court. See A.F.P.,

, at *7 2 (explaining that location of books and records is not decisive and is neutral as to transfer of case 3 because documentary evidence could be reproduced and transmitted electronically to court); see 4 also Williams v. Robert Half Int’l Inc., No. 4:20-cv-03989-KAW,

, at *3 5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2020) (“[I]n the digital age, the access to records is neutral given the 6 portability of documents.”). Defendants have not argued that, for example, any important 7 evidence cannot be easily transmitted to the Eastern District. See Mazik,

, at *8 8 (concluding location of evidence not significant consideration where defendants did not argue 9 that evidence could not be easily transmitted to Eastern District); Martinez v. San Diego County, 10 No. 1:16-cv-01140-DAD-SKO,

, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2017) (“Defendant 11 San Diego County does not allege that discovery in this case [will] implicate any unique types of 12 information that cannot be easily digitized or that any on-site inspections will be required in San 13 Diego.”). This factor is therefore neutral as to the transfer of this case. 14 4. Costs of litigation and time to trial 15 Defendant generally asserts that in California, the cost of litigation tends to rise because of 16 higher legal fees, and that such fees in Wyoming are significant lower. In support, Defendant 17 cites the average hourly rate of attorneys in California versus the average hourly rate of attorneys 18 in Wyoming. (Doc. 5-1.) However, this comparison between states is not determinative because 19 it provides little analysis between the legal rates in Wyoming and those in the Eastern District of 20 California, which tend to be lower than other metropolitan areas in California. 21 Defendant also posits that the fees associated with expert witnesses, depositions, and 22 court-appointed experts can be more expensive in California. (Doc. 5-1 at 10.) However, 23 Defendant does not identify any particular expert witnesses, cite any related costs for depositions, 24 which may sometimes be conducted by video, or verify the need for court-appointed experts. 25 Additionally, the Court notes that the convenience of expert witnesses is not generally afforded 26 significant consideration. See Mendoza v. In-N-Out Burgers, No. 2:20-cv-01406-JAD-NJK, 2020

, at *2 n.7 (D. Nev. Nov. 23, 2020) (citing Bailey v. Bernzomatic,

11198647, at *4 (C.D. Cal. June 30, 2016)). Thus, the Court concludes that the costs of litigation 1 do not weigh in favor of transfer. 2 Courts also consider “the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion” in 3 considering the interest of justice. Decker Coal,

. Defendant states that “[i]t is 4 well known that this Court is significantly congested consistently carrying the average weighted 5 caseloads equal or close to twice the national average.” (Doc. 5-1 at 12.) Defendant contrasts 6 this Court’s caseload to that of the District Wyoming, which reportedly “has seen a decrease in 7 filings in recent years.” (Id.) Plaintiffs counter that, as of March 2024, the Eastern District of 8 California had a median of 9.9 months from filing to disposition for civil cases, while Wyoming 9 had a median of 10.2 months from filing to disposition for civil cases. (Doc. 7 at 16.) In reply, 10 Defendant suggests that Plaintiffs’ information is incomplete and misleading as it relates to the 11 aggregated time from filing to disposition. Defendant notes that the statistics demonstrate:

12 Where there was court action before pretrial, California’s Eastern District average for 2024 is 10.9 months, while Wyoming’s average is 4.1 months. Where there 13 was court action during or after pretrial, California’s Eastern District average for 2024 is 19.1 months, while Wyoming’s average is 13.8 months. Where there was 14 court action during trial, California’s Eastern District average for 2024 is 60.9 months, while Wyoming’s average is undetermined (median time intervals are not 15 computed when fewer than 10 cases are reported). 16 (Doc. 12 at 8.3) 17 This Court’s overwhelming caseload has been well publicized, and the ongoing judicial 18 resource emergency in this District continues even now. Indeed, as expressed in the Standing 19 Order, the judges of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California “have 20 long labored under one of the heaviest caseloads in the nation even when operating with a full 21 complement of six authorized District Judges.” (Doc. 11 at 4.) Nonetheless, while court 22 congestion in this District is a factor weighing in Defendant’s favor, it is not a determinative 23 factor upon which the granting of the motion to transfer should be based. See A.F.P.,

2704570, at *9. This factor thus weighs somewhat in favor of transfer. 25 /// 26

27 3 Citing Civil Federal Judicial Caseload Statistics, Median Time From Filing to Disposition of Civil Cases, by Action Taken (March 31, 2024), https://www.uscourts.gov/data -news/data-tables/2024/03/31/federal- 28 judical-caseload-staatitics/c-5. 1 5. Convenience of the Witnesses 2 “Convenience of witnesses is one of the most important factors in the determination of 3 whether to grant a change of venue.” Randles,

, at *6. A transfer of venue 4 “may be denied when witnesses either live in the forum district or are within the 100-mile reach 5 of the subpoena power” because individuals cannot be compelled to testify when they reside 6 beyond the boundaries of the Court’s subpoena power. Los Angeles Memorial coliseum Comm’n 7 v. Nat’l Football League,

(C.D. Cal. 1981) (citations omitted). “To 8 demonstrate inconvenience of witnesses, the moving party must identify relevant witnesses, state 9 their location and describe their testimony and its relevance.” Carolina Cas. Co. v. Data Broad 10 Corp.,

(N.D. Cal. 2001); see also Randles,

, at *6. 11 Here, Defendant lists a number of witnesses located in Wyoming who are expected to 12 provide testimony regarding the formation of BDH and its transition out of California to 13 Wyoming. (Doc. 5-1 at 11.) These witnesses do not appear to be offered for evidence directly 14 relevant to the underlying allegations in the complaint, and Plaintiffs note that “BDH being 15 formed in California and then later being merged out to the BDH in Wyoming years later … is 16 not a contested issue.” (Doc. 7 at 10.) The remainder of Defendant’s non-party witnesses are 17 listed as (1) unnamed notaries in Wyoming to testify to transactions conducted by Defendant; (2) 18 Nick Jones, based in Kansas City, Missouri, the developer that brokered most of BDH’s real 19 estate transactions; (3) Jeffrey Wilkinson, the accountant for the Walker entities located in 20 Jackson, Wyoming; and (4) Chicago Title and First American Title, with offices throughout the 21 United States. (Doc. 5-1 at 11-12.) Of these witnesses, only the unnamed notaries and Mr. 22 Wilkinson are located in Wyoming. The Court therefore finds that the convenience of these non- 23 party witnesses weighs only minimally, if at all, in favor of transfer. 24 Plaintiffs instead list a number of non-party witnesses located in California, including (1) 25 Lisa Harrison, Defendant’s secretary in Danville, California, responsible for control of the UBS4 26 accounts for BDH and the two California partnerships, and whose testimony reportedly “will be 27 4 The California partnerships and BDH maintain bank accounts through UBS Financial Services Inc., a 28 Delaware corporation doing business throughout the country. (Doc. 5-2, Darrick Decl. ¶ 24.) 1 essential to resolving [the] issue” of the improper movement of funds to and from these accounts 2 (Doc. 7 at 8); (2) Jenhi Ciapponi, the original whistleblower on the alleged forgeries and 3 fraudulent practices, located at Fresno Madera Farm Credit in California, who “[w]ill be able to 4 testify to the forgeries regarding the improper loan [Defendant] sought;” (Id.) (3) David Brits, a 5 California businessman and farmer with partial ownership of the Idaho investment, FedEx 6 Building, and WB timber LLC, alongside BDH, whose testimony “will give insight into how 7 these properties and transactions . . . occurred and Darrick[’s] due diligence or lack thereof,” (Id. 8 at 9); (4) Wonderful Processing Company, located in California, related to Darrick’s alleged 9 instruction to divert finds away from the partnerships’ accounts, (Id.); (5) Almond Company, 10 located in Madera, California, related to Darrick’s alleged instruction not to remit payment to 11 partnership accounts where either Brandon or Heidi had access, (Id.); and (6) Moss Adams, the 12 accounting firm for all of the named entities in this action, and Michael Holtermann, at the Fresno 13 branch, who is the Walker family’s accountant handling the specific accounts for the named 14 entities, (Id.). 15 On balance, the Court concludes that consideration of witness convenience and the 16 availability of compulsory process weigh strongly against transferring venue. 17 6. Familiarity with governing law 18 Defendant argues that the subject of the instant action involves the management of a 19 Wyoming limited liability company, governed by Wyoming law. To that end, Defendant 20 contends that ‘[l]ocal attorneys, judges and legal professional in Wyoming are most 21 knowledgeable about the application of Wyoming law, as they are directly responsible for 22 interpreting and applying them.” (Doc. 5-1 at 9.) Plaintiffs counter that California law applies 23 and that a California district court is more familiar with California law. Plaintiff argues that 24 California’s choice of law rules apply in this diversity action, and that the laws of California 25 govern the two California partnerships at issue and the complaint’s causes of action directly 26 pertaining to them. (Doc. 7 at 11-13.) Plaintiffs also suggest that “it is not clear whether even 27 BDH, originally incorporated in California, would be governed under Wyoming law in this 28 action.” (Id. at 12.) 1 It is not necessary for the Court to resolve the issue of whether this action is governed by 2 California or Wyoming law. “Federal courts are deemed capable of applying the law of other 3 states.” A.F.P.,

, at *8 (quoting Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. 4 National R.R. Passenger Corp., No. 1:14-cv-04717-FB-RLM,

, at *4 5 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2015)). Indeed, it is routine for federal courts to analyze and apply the laws 6 of diverse states. See Kitzler v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC, No. CV 22-6550-MWF (KS),

18284983, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2022) (finding state most familiar with governing law a 8 neutral factor because federal courts routinely analyze and apply the laws of diverse states). The 9 District of Wyoming court is capable of deciding issues arising under California law, while the 10 Eastern District of California court is capable of deciding issues arising under Wyoming law. See 11 Randles,

, at *6 (“The Northern District of Texas court is fully capable of 12 deciding issue arising under California law.”); Metz v. U.S. Life Ins. Co.,

, 13 1148 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (indicating judges in both New York and California are fully capable of 14 deciding issues arising under both California and New York law). This factor is therefore neutral. 15 7. Public Interest 16 Defendant asserts that Wyoming supports its residents’ access to courts when they have 17 substantial ties to the state, and allowing litigation in California risks creating a disconnect 18 between the laws that govern the business incorporated in Wyoming and the jurisdiction in which 19 it is resolved. (Doc. 5-1 at 10.) This argument is not persuasive. As discussed, the Eastern 20 District of California is equally able to apply Wyoming law. 21 Plaintiffs argue California has interest in this action because two of the entities named in 22 this action are California partnerships. (Doc. 7 at 11-12.) The Court recognizes that California 23 has an interest in protecting its residents and businesses. However, the operative facts in this 24 action generally occurred in the District of Wyoming and involved a Wyoming business, BDH. 25 The Court concludes that Wyoming has an equal or greater interest in policing the conduct of 26 companies within that state. See Randles,

, at *6. For these reasons, the Court 27 concludes that this factor supports transfer. 28 /// 1 IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 2 For the reasons discussed above, the Court concludes that, albeit a close call, Defendant 3 has failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating that a transfer would promote the convenience of 4 the witnesses or parties or would be in the interests of justice. Accordingly, Darrick Walker’s 5 motion to transfer venue under

(a) is DENIED. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7

8 Dated: May 7, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28