Charbel Elkhoueiry v. Larry N Schroeder

Filing 19

ORDER by Judge Virginia A. Phillips, GRANTING MOTION for Change of Venue 12 . (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (ad)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 CHARBEL ELKHOUEIRY, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Gainey Corporation and Gainey Transportation Service 23 Inc.'s (collectively "Defendant") Motion for Change of 24 Venue came before the Court for hearing on November 3, 25 2008. Plaintiff did not appear through his counsel nor After reviewing and 26 did he file any opposition. 28 ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) LARRY N. SCHROEDER; ) SUSAN L. SCHROEDER; ) GAINEY CORPORATION; ) GAINEY TRANSPORTATION ) SERVICE, INC.; NATIONAL ) AMERICAN INSURANCE ) COMPANY; F.A. RICHARD & ) ASSOCIATES; MANDEVILLE ) CLAIMS; DOES 1 TO 10, ) inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________ ) Case No. EDCV 08-1067-VAP (OPx) [Motion filed on October 13, 2008] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

27 considering all papers filed in support of the Motion, as

1 well as the arguments advanced by counsel at the hearing, 2 the Court GRANTS the Motion for Change of Venue. 3 4 The Court grants Defendant's motion for transfer of 5 venue because Plaintiff has not opposed the Motion and 6 private and public factors weight in favor of 7 adjudicating this dispute in Ohio, where the dispute 8 occurred. 9 10 A. 11 12 Venue is Improper in the Central District of California Plaintiff satisfied none of the requirements of 28 As to 28 U.S.C. §

13 U.S.C. § 1391 when he filed suit here.

14 1391 (a) and (b), Plaintiff did not allege that a 15 defendant resided in California nor that the collision 16 took place in California. As to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c), the 17 Central District of California was not a proper venue 18 because there was another district where the action could 19 have been brought: the district where the collision 20 occurred. 21 22 B. 23 Venue is Proper in the Southern District of Ohio The factors outlined in Jones v. GNC Franchising, See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)-(c).

24 Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000) indicate 25 transfer is appropriate: several factors weigh in favor 26 of transfer, several affect the balance neither one way 27 28
2

1 or another, and none weigh in favor of maintaining the 2 action here. 3 4 5 6 1. Venue is Proper in Ohio Because This Action Could have Been Brought There Venue is proper under section 1391 of Title 28 in "a .

7 judicial district in which a substantial part of the 8 events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred 9 . ." 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 (2) The state that is most familiar with the governing law This factor is neutral. Upon transfer, the Ohio (1) The location where the relevant agreements were negotiated and executed This factor does not apply to this controversy. 15 of transfer. 2. Private and Public Factors Weigh in Favor of Change of Venue to Ohio The factors in the Jones test weigh strongly in favor Venue is proper in the Southern District of Ohio 10 because the collision occurred there.

25 court would apply the same choice-of-law rules that a 26 California court would apply, which could be the law of 27 the state where the accident occurred. 28
3

1 2

(3) The Plaintiff's choice of forum Ordinarily this factor would weigh in favor of Here, however, Plaintiff did not oppose the

3 California, where the Plaintiff resides and chose to file 4 suit. 5 Motion. 6 7 8 9 (4) The respective parties' contacts with the forum This factor weighs heavily in favor of transfer. The

10 only contact that all the parties share is a collision in 11 Ohio. In contrast, the only contact between California 12 and this case, according to the Complaint, is that 13 Plaintiff lives here. 14 15 16 17 18 (5) The contacts relating to the Plaintiff's cause of action in the chosen forum This factor weighs heavily in favor of transfer. It is fair to

19 Plaintiff's contact with Ohio is the collision there, the 20 event on which Plaintiff brings suit. 21 transfer Plaintiff's case when his contact with that 22 forum is the event on which he brings suit. 23 24 25 26 28
4

(6) The differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums This factor is neutral. Litigation costs for all

27 parties will be lower in Ohio than California because any

1 non-party witnesses are likely to be located in Ohio, as 2 discussed below. 3 4 Otherwise, litigation costs for the Plaintiff will be Litigation costs will not 5 higher in Ohio as his attorney's address on the Complaint 6 is in Los Angeles, California. 7 necessarily be lower for the other parties in Ohio, as 8 none of them are residents of Ohio: the Schroeders are 9 citizens of Missouri; the Gainey entities are citizens of 10 Michigan; FARA is a citizen of Louisiana. 11 12 13 14 15 16 (7) The availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses This factor weighs strongly in favor of transfer. As (Compl. ¶ 1.)

17 Defendant points out, "[o]btaining compulsory process for 18 the attendance of unwilling witnesses will be much less 19 expensive in their resident state." 20 21 22 (8) The ease of access to sources of proof This factor weighs strongly in favor of transfer. As (Mot. 7.)

23 Defendant points out, "[p]olice officers, emergency 24 personnel, local bystanders and other eyewitnesses will 25 make up a good deal of the witness list. 27 28
5

The expense of

26 obtaining both deposition and trial testimony from these

1 individuals will be alleviated by the case being venued 2 in Ohio. . . " 3 4 As described above, no factor weighs strongly in Some 5 favor of maintaining the action before this Court. (Mot. 7.)

6 of Plaintiff's litigation costs will increase if the case 7 is transferred, but others will remain the same (cost of 8 taking depositions) or be decreased (cost of obtaining 9 witnesses for trial). As Plaintiff has not opposed the 10 Motion, the Court may assume that Plaintiff's judgment is 11 that transfer will not cause a hardship to Plaintiff. 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 Dated: November 7, 2008 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
6

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to

14 transfer venue.

VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS United States District Judge