Quintero v. Exmark Manufacturing Company, Inc et al

Filing 16

ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti denying 6 Motion to Change Venue (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2011)

Quintero v. Exmark Manufacturing Company, Inc et al

Doc. 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID QUINTERO, Plaintiff, v. EXMARK MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., a corporation, and THE TORO COMPANY, a corporation, Defendants.

United States District Court

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

) Case No. 10-5419 SC ) ) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ) TRANSFER VENUE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

I.

INTRODUCTION Before the Court is a fully briefed Motion by Defendants

Exmark Manufacturing Company, Inc. ("Exmark") and The Toro Company ("Toro") (collectively, "Defendants") to transfer venue to the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division, under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). ECF Nos. 6 ("Mot."), 10 ("Opp'n"), 12 ("Reply").

For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants' Motion.

II.

BACKGROUND Plaintiff David Quintero ("Quintero") filed this personal

injury action in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, on November 15, 2010. A ("Compl."). ECF No. 1 ("Notice of Removal") Ex.

Plaintiff claims he was injured while operating a

riding lawnmower allegedly designed, manufactured, and sold by

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
For the Northern District of California

Defendants.1

Id.

On November 30, 2010, Defendants removed to See Notice

federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. of Removal.

Defendants alleged in their Notice of Removal that at

the time of filing, Plaintiff was a California resident and citizen, Exmark was a Nebraska corporation with its principal place of business in Nebraska, and Toro was a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Minnesota. Id. ¶¶ 4-5.

Now Defendants seek to transfer the case to the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California. Defendants allege

that Plaintiff injured his foot while operating the lawnmower as a part-time landscaper for the N.A. Chaderjian Youth Correctional Facility ("the correctional facility") in Stockton, California. Mot. at 1. Defendants argue that transfer to the Eastern District

United States District Court

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

is appropriate because the injury occurred in Stockton, which lies within the Eastern District, and because pertinent witnesses to the incident and Plaintiff's subsequent medical treatment live in Stockton. Id. at 2-3. Plaintiff argues that his

Plaintiff opposes the motion.

choice of forum is given substantial weight, and that convenience and justice do not favor transfer of the action. Opp'n at 2.

III. LEGAL STANDARD "For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil matter to any other district or division where it might have been brought." U.S.C. § 1404(a). The purpose of § 1404(a) is to "prevent the 28

1

The relationship between Exmark and Toro, and what roles they performed in the design, manufacture, and sale of the lawnmower, are not clear from Plaintiff's Complaint. 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
For the Northern District of California

waste of time, energy, and money and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense." Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964) (internal "A motion for transfer lies within the

quotation marks omitted).

broad discretion of the district court, and must be determined on an individualized basis." Foster v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., No.

07-4928, 2007 WL 4410408, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2007) (citing Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000)). To support a motion for transfer, the moving party must establish that venue is proper in the transferor district, the transferee district is one where the action might have been brought, and the transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and will promote the interests of justice. 2007 WL 4410408 at *2. Foster,

United States District Court

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

In determining this issue, courts look to

the following factors: (1) plaintiff's choice of forum; (2) convenience of the parties and witnesses; (3) ease of access to the evidence; (4) familiarity of each forum with the applicable law; (5) feasibility of consolidation with other claims; (6) any local interest in the controversy; and (7) the relative court congestion and time to trial in each forum. See id.

IV.

DISCUSSION There is no dispute between the parties that venue is proper

in both the Northern District and the Eastern District.

Thus,

resolution of this matter hinges on whether the above-mentioned factors favor transfer to serve the interests of convenience and justice. ///

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
For the Northern District of California

A.

Plaintiff's Choice of Forum

Plaintiff states a strong preference for the Northern District. Opp'n at 2. Defendants argue that Plaintiff's choice

of forum should be given little weight because "there is no connection between the Northern District and the underlying incident." Reply at 3. Defendants argue that because the incident

occurred in Stockton, and because Plaintiff has recently rented a room in Sacramento and intends to look for work in Sacramento, there is insufficient nexus for the Court to give Plaintiff's choice of forum substantial weight. Plaintiff alleges that his Hill

United States District Court

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

permanent residence is in Vallejo, where his mother lives. Decl. ¶ 2.2 The Court finds that Plaintiff's decision to move to

Sacramento after filing this action does not affect the weight given to his forum preference. Plaintiff. B. Convenience of the Parties and Witnesses Accordingly, this factor favors

Defendants argue that all the witnesses to the injury, as well as all the witnesses who treated Plaintiff immediately after the injury, reside in Stockton. Reply at 4. Defendants identify

thirteen such witnesses, including the individuals who called for medical personnel, three nurses who assisted with initial treatment, and several correctional center workers who subsequently investigated the incident. Id. at 4-5. Plaintiff counters that it

is extremely unlikely that all of these witnesses will testify at trial, that there are no eyewitnesses to the actual injury, and that most of the named witnesses "simply observed [Plaintiff's]
2

John E. Hill ("Hill"), counsel for Plaintiff, filed a declaration in opposition to Defendants' Motion. ECF No. 11. 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
For the Northern District of California

injury after it had occurred."

Hill Decl. ¶ 3.

Plaintiff also

alleges that Plaintiff's three treating physicians all reside in the Northern District, and that San Francisco is a more convenient forum for any out-of-state witnesses because there are more flights to and from San Francisco than Sacramento. Id. ¶ 6, Opp'n at 2.

The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that Stockton is roughly eighty miles from San Francisco and fifty miles from Sacramento. As such, any inconvenience to any Stockton witness is The

limited to an additional thirty miles' of travel each way.

Court agrees with Plaintiff that it is highly unlikely all or even most of the potential witnesses that Defendants list will testify at trial. For instance, it is highly unlikely that the three

United States District Court

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

nurses who treated Plaintiff and his doctor would all testify at trial. Because the inconvenience to the Stockton witnesses is

minimal and offset by the inconvenience to Plaintiff's Northern District witnesses if the Court transferred the action, the Court finds that this factor favors neither party. C. Ease of Access to the Evidence

Defendants allege that the riding lawnmower that allegedly injured Plaintiff is currently in the Eastern District, as are "all pertinent records and documents." Mot. at 7. The Court finds that

this evidence could easily be transported to the Northern District, and so this factor favors neither party. D. Local Interest in the Controversy

Defendants argue that the Eastern District has an interest in adjudicating disputes arising from accidents occurring within its geographic boundaries, and the Northern District has no interest in presiding over this lawsuit. Id. at 8. The Court disagrees; the

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
For the Northern District of California

Northern District has an interest in offering its residents a convenient forum for their legal disputes. favors neither party. E. Other Factors As such, this factor

Defendants admit that the other factors -- feasibility of consolidation, familiarity of each forum with applicable law, and relative court congestion and time to trial -- are inapplicable to this action or favor neither party. See id.

The Court finds that no factors favor transfer of this action to the Eastern District. Furthermore, this action was filed five

United States District Court

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

months ago, and the parties have yet to appear in Court for a status conference. proceedings. Transfer would undoubtedly further delay

Because transfer to the Eastern District would

neither serve the interests of justice nor the convenience of the parties, the Court DENIES Defendants' Motion.

V.

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants Exmark

Manufacturing Company, Inc. and The Toro Company's Motion to Transfer Venue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2010 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6