M. S. v. Lake Elsinore Unified School District

Filing 23

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue 19 is DENIED. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

‘O’

Case No.

5:16-cv-01122-CAS(SPx)

Title

M. S. V. LAKE ELSINORE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Present: The Honorable

Date

September 14, 2016

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) - DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER
VENUE (Dkt. 19, filed August 17, 2016)

The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing date of September 19, 2016, is
vacated, and the matter is hereby taken under submission.
I.

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff M.S. is a minor with autism, represented by a Guardian Ad Litem, Peggy
Sartin. Defendant is the Lake Elsinore Unified School District. Plaintiff and defendant
are located in Riverside, in the Eastern Division of the United States Court for the Central
District of California (“Eastern Division”).
In 2012, plaintiff filed a due process hearing complaint pursuant to the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq.,
claiming a denial of a free and appropriate public school education from January 2011 to
June 2013. Dkt. 19. In 2013, the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) decided in
favor of defendant and plaintiff appealed the 2013 OAH decision in the Eastern Division.
Case No. 5:16-cv-01484, Dkt. 4. This Court heard plaintiff’s 2013 appeal and decided in
favor of plaintiff. Id. On April 22, 2016, defendant filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals, which is currently pending. Dkt. 16.
In 2015, plaintiff filed another due process hearing complaint pursuant to IDEA
claiming a denial of a free and appropriate public school education between 2013 and
2015. Dkt. 19. On March 1, 2016, the OAH decided in favor of defendant. Id. On May
30, 2016, plaintiff filed an appeal of the 2016 OAH decision in the Eastern Division.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

5:16-cv-01122-CAS(SPx)

September 14, 2016

Title

M. S. V. LAKE ELSINORE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Dkt. 1. On June 6, 2016, the appeal was assigned to be heard in the Western Division of
the United States Court for the Central District of California (“Western Division”), before
this Court on September 19, 2016. Dkt. 6.
On August 9, 2016, in the present case, defendant filed an objection to plaintiff’s
anticipated Notice of Related Cases. Dkt. 16. On August 12, 2016, plaintiff filed a
Notice of Related Cases pursuant to Local Rule 83-1.3, contending that this case is
related to plaintiff’s 2013 case. Dkt. 17.
On August 17, 2016, defendant filed a motion to transfer this case from the
Western Division to the Eastern Division. Dkt. 19. On August 29, 2016, plaintiff filed
her opposition. Dkt. 21. On September 2, 2016, defendant filed its reply. Dkt. 22.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD
A.

Transfer of Venue

“For [1] the convenience of parties and [2] witnesses, [and] [3] in the interest of
justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where
it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have
consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
The party seeking to transfer venue bears the burden of showing that convenience
and justice require transfer. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Savage, 611 F.2d
270, 278-279 (9th Cir. 1979); Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d
834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986) (“The defendant must make a strong showing of inconvenience
to warrant upsetting the plaintiff’s choice of forum.”). The decision to transfer lies within
the sound discretion of the trial judge. See Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d
635, 639 (9th Cir. 1988).
In analyzing the “interests of justice,” a number of factors are relevant, including
the following: (1) the location where the relevant agreements were negotiated and
executed, (2) the state that is most familiar with the governing law, (3) the plaintiff’s
choice of forum, (4) the respective parties’ contacts with the forum, (5) the contacts
relating to the plaintiff’s cause of action in the chosen forum, (6) the differences in the
costs of litigation in the two forums, (7) the availability of compulsory process to compel
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

5:16-cv-01122-CAS(SPx)

September 14, 2016

Title

M. S. V. LAKE ELSINORE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses, and (8) the ease of access to sources of
proof. Stewart Org. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29-30 (1988); Jones v. GNC
Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000) (same). Other factors that may be
considered are: the enforceability of the judgment; the relative court congestion in the
two forums; and which forum would better serve judicial economy. 17 Moore’s Federal
Practice § 111.13[1][c] (3d ed. 1997). However, “[s]ubstantial weight is accorded to the
plaintiff’s choice of forum, and a court should not order a transfer unless the
‘convenience’ and ‘justice’ factors set forth above weigh heavily in favor of venue
elsewhere.” Catch Curve, Inc. v. Venali, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96379, *3-4 (C.D.
Cal. 2006).
B.

Central District of California General Order 14-03

General Order 14-03 prescribes the procedure for assigning and reassigning cases
and duties to the district judges of the Central District of California. Civil cases in which
50% or more of the plaintiffs or 50% or more of the defendants reside in the Eastern
Division are assigned to the Eastern Division. General Order No. 14-03 § I.B.1.a(1)(c).
However, a case that originates in the Eastern Division may be randomly assigned to the
Western Division “in order to balance the number of cases assigned to judicial officers,
maximize judicial resources, and ensure the timely handling of case.” Id. § I.B.1.a(2).
Unless otherwise specified, cases are randomly assigned to district judges. Id. § I.B.
III.

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends that plaintiff engaged in forum shopping. Dkt. 19. In fact,
plaintiff correctly filed her appeal of the 2016 OAH decision in the Eastern Division
because all of the parties reside in the Eastern Division. Dkt. 1; see General Order No.
14-03 § I.B.1.a(1)(c).
Defendant further contends that General Order 14-03 requires this case to be
assigned to the Eastern Division. Dkt. 19, 22. However, Section I.B.1.a(2) of the
General Order states that cases that originate in the Eastern Division may be transferred
to the Western Division to balance the number of cases assigned to judicial officers,
maximize judicial resources, and ensure the timely handling of case.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

5:16-cv-01122-CAS(SPx)

September 14, 2016

Title

M. S. V. LAKE ELSINORE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Defendant argues that transfer of venue is proper because plaintiff did not timely
file her Notice of Related Cases and because this case is not related to plaintiff’s 2013
case. Dkt. 22. However, the assignment of the current case was not based on a Notice of
Related Cases, since plaintiff did not file such a notice until two months after the case
was assigned to this Court. See Dkt. 21; Dkt. 16.
Defendant also argues that the Eastern Division will best serve the convenience of
the parties because both plaintiff and defendant are located in Riverside. Dkt. 19.
However, there are no parties or non-party witnesses that are outside this Court’s
subpoena power because Riverside is within 100 miles of this Court. Fed. R. Civ. P.
45(c)(1)(a); see also Ezimie v. Ward Intern. Trading, Inc., 2009 WL 2818394, *10 (C.D.
Cal. 2009). The other transfer factors do not apply, or, at best, are neutral.
Based on the foregoing, this Court finds that defendant has not made a sufficient
showing of inconvenience that warrants a transfer of venue to the Eastern Division.
VI.

CONCLUSION
Defendant’s motion to transfer venue is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 4 of 4