Stephen Echols v. Morpho Detection, Inc.

Filing 50

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/1/2013. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/1/2013) [Transferred from California Northern on 5/3/2013.]

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

STEPHEN ECHOLS,

5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

No. C 12-1581 CW

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER TRANSFERRING
CASE TO THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT
OF CALIFORNIA

MORPHO DETECTION, INC.; UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
AGENCY; and JANET NAPOLITANO, in
her official capacity as
Secretary of Homeland Security,
Defendants.
________________________________/
On April 11, 2013, the Court informed the parties that it was

13
“considering whether to transfer the case on its own motion to
14
Plaintiff’s home forum, the Central District of California,” and
15
directed the parties to “include their views on transfer in their
16
joint case management statement,” if no motion or stipulation to
17
transfer was filed before their joint statement was due.

Docket

18
No. 48, 14-15.

The parties have since filed their joint case

19
management statement addressing transfer.

Having considered the

20
parties’ statement and the record of this case, the Court now
21
finds good cause to transfer this case to the United States
22
District Court for the Central District of California pursuant to
23
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
24
As explained in greater detail in the Court’s April 11, 2013
25
order, in this action, Plaintiff brings claims against Defendants
26
related to Federal Defendants’ finding that he was ineligible to
27
work on certain federal contracts because of his failed background
28

1

check and Morpho’s subsequent termination of him.

2

sought leave to amend his pleading to assert a Privacy Act claim

3

against Federal Defendants, which the Court denied because venue

4

for that claim is not proper in this district.

5

13.

6

that he intends to re-assert his Privacy Act claim in a proper

7

district, which he identifies as the Central District of

8

California, and that he would like to transfer this case to that

9

venue, so that his claims can proceed together.

Plaintiff

Docket No. 48, 11-

In the joint case management statement, Plaintiff represents

Docket No. 49, 4,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

6.

11

surviving claim against them under the Freedom of Information Act

12

(FOIA) to be transferred to the District Court for the Central

13

District of California, where they believe that “venue would be

14

proper.”

15

its views on transfer in the case management statement, Morpho has

16

not expressed any opposition to transfer of the case to the

17

Central District of California.

18

Federal Defendants also state that they would like the

Id. at 3.

Despite the Court’s invitation to set forth

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court may transfer a

19

civil case if the court determines that the action “might have

20

been brought” in the transferee court, and the convenience of the

21

parties and witnesses in the interests of justice favor transfer.

22

Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 409, 414 (9th Cir. 1985).

23

the court finds that the first prong of the § 1404(a) analysis is

24

satisfied, it has discretion to engage in an “individualized,

25

case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.”

26

GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting

27

Stewart Org. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988)).

28

transfer a case sua sponte.

Jones v.

A court may

See Muldoon v. Tropitone Furniture
2

If

1

Co., 1 F.3d 964, 966 (9th Cir. 1993); Washington Pub. Util. Group

2

v. United States Dist. Court for Western Dist., 843 F.2d 319, 326

3

(9th Cir. 1987).

4

As an initial matter, the Court finds that this action could

5

have been brought in the Central District of California.

6

not been disputed by any party.

7

because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise

8

to the claims in this suit took place within that district, which

9

is where Plaintiff was employed by and terminated by Morpho and

This has

Venue is proper in that district

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

where the alleged identity theft took place.

11

Exs. 1 & 2.

12

U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) (providing that, among others, “the district

13

court of the United States in the district in which the

14

complainant resides” is a proper venue for FOIA claims).

15

based on Plaintiff’s allegations, it appears that all Defendants

16

are subject to personal jurisdiction in the Central District.

17

See 1AC ¶¶ 2, 8 &

Further, Plaintiff resides in that district.

See 5

Finally,

The Court also concludes that the interests of fairness and

18

convenience strongly favor transfer.

19

original choice of forum is generally given considerable weight,

20

his choice is less important where, as here, it is neither

21

Plaintiff’s home forum nor where the operative events took place.

22

See, e.g., Emplrs Mut. Cas. Co. v. Bartile Roofs, Inc., 618 F.3d

23

1153, 1168 (10th Cir. 2010) (“The plaintiff’s choice of forum

24

receives less deference . . . if the plaintiff does not reside in

25

the district” or “where the facts giving rise to the lawsuit have

26

no material relation or significant connection to the plaintiff’s

27

chosen forum.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

28

Further, Plaintiff supports transfer.
3

Although Plaintiff’s

In addition, witnesses and

1

physical evidence are more likely to be found in that district.

2

Finally, transfer would allow all of Plaintiff’s claims to proceed

3

together, thereby conserving the resources of the parties, the

4

judiciary and witnesses who may otherwise be called in multiple

5

courts.

6

Accordingly, the Court TRANSFERS this action on its own

7

motion to the United States District Court for the Central

8

District of California, Western Division.

9

Plaintiff’s renewed request in the case management statement for

The Court DENIES

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

leave to amend to assert a Privacy Act claim because, as explained

11

in the April 11, 2013 order, venue in this district is improper.1

12

Plaintiff’s request otherwise appears proper, except against

13

Secretary Napolitano, and the denial is without prejudice to

14

Plaintiff renewing his request before the Central District of

15

California court.

16

The parties may proceed with discovery at this time and

17

should seek resolution of any discovery disputes, including the

18

appropriate scope of discovery from the Federal Defendants, before

19

the Central District of California court.

20

The Court requests that the assigned judge in the Central

21

District of California refer the parties for a settlement

22

conference with a magistrate judge, to be held as soon as

23

practicable.

24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff represents that his proposed second amended
complaint is attached to the case management statement as Exhibit
1. However, no exhibits were filed with the statement. The Court
assumes for the purposes of this order that Plaintiff sought to
assert the same Privacy Act claim that was contained in the
proposed second amended complaint filed with Plaintiff’s motion
for leave to amend his pleadings. See Docket No. 42-1.
4

1

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and in the

2

interest of justice, the Clerk of the Court is ordered to TRANSFER

3

this action forthwith to the United States District Court for the

4

Central District of California, Western Division.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

Dated: 5/1/2013

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5