Williams et al v. County of Kern

Filing 42

ORDER OF TRANSFER TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on November 26, 2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/27/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LACHANA WILLIAMS, et al.,

Case No. 13-cv-00508-JST

Plaintiffs,
8

ORDER OF TRANSFER TO THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

v.
9
10

COUNTY OF KERN,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

The Court having severed and transferred Plaintiffs’ claims against the United States

13
Department of Agriculture to the Court of Federal Claims, ECF No. 30, the only remaining
14
defendant in this action is the Kern County Fire Department. Plaintiffs Lachana and Rupert
15
Williams are residents of Florida and New Jersey. ECF Nos. 37, 39. Because no party is located
16
in this district, the Court ordered the parties to show cause why this action should not be
17
transferred to the Eastern District of California, where the Kern County Fire Department is
18
located, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the
19
interest of justice.
20
Plaintiffs opposed transfer, and Kern County filed a brief in support. Plaintiffs have not
21
filed a reply within the time period allowed by the Court in its Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 38.
22
The Court considers the matter submitted and will order that the case be transferred to the Eastern
23
District of California.
24
25

I.

BACKGROUND
The Court incorporates its review of Plaintiffs’ factual allegations in this action found in its

26
Order Denying Motion to Dismiss, Severing Claim Against the United States, and Transferring to
27
Court of Federal Claims, ECF No. 30.
28

1
2
3

II.

LEGAL STANDARDS
“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, 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.” 28
U.S.C. § 1404(a). The purpose of section 1404(a) is to “prevent the waste of time, energy, and

4
money and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and
5

expense.” Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964) (quotation omitted). A motion for

6
transfer lies within the broad discretion of the district court, and must be determined on an
7
individualized basis. See Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000).
8
Courts considering transfer must engage in a two-step analysis. First, courts determine
9
whether the action could have been brought in the target district. Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S.
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

335, 344 (1960). Second, courts undertake an “individualized, case-by-case consideration of
convenience and fairness.” Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (quoting

12
Van Dusen, 376 U.S. at 622). That analysis considers the convenience of the parties, the
13
convenience of the witnesses, and the interests of justice, as understood through the following
14

eight factors: “(1) the location where the relevant agreements were negotiated and executed,

15
(2) the state that is most familiar with the governing law, (3) the plaintiff's choice of forum, (4) the
16
respective parties' contacts with the forum, (5) the contacts relating to the plaintiff's cause of
17
action in the chosen forum, (6) the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums, (7) the
18
availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses, and
19

(8) the ease of access to sources of proof.” Jones, 211 F.3d at 498–99. The moving party bears

20
the burden of establishing the factors in favor of transfer. Id.
21
22
23

III.

ANALYSIS
A.

Venue in the Eastern District of California

Plaintiffs do not dispute that this case could have been brought in the Eastern District of
24
California. A civil action in which an agency of the United States is named as defendant may be
25
brought in any judicial district in which a defendant in the action resides. 28 U.S.C. §
26
1392(e)(1)(A). Here, Plaintiffs named the Department of Agriculture as a defendant, and Kern
27
County resides in the Eastern District of California. This action therefore could have been brought
28
2

1

in the Eastern District of California.

2

B.

3

Plaintiffs oppose transfer on two grounds. First, Plaintiffs argue that they are residents of

Convenience of the Parties and Witnesses, and the Interests of Justice

4

Florida and New Jersey and that “it will be very inconvenient for us to attend court in Eastern

5

District, because there is no major airport located in the Eastern District that would be convenient

6

for us to fly into, in order to attend court without causing additional financial burden on the

7

Plaintiffs.” ECF No. 39 at 1–2. Second, Plaintiffs argue that they intend to call as witnesses two

8

federal employees listed on the purchaser’s receipt for the aircraft whose main offices are located

9

in the Northern District of California, in San Francisco.
Neither ground is persuasive. The factual heart of this case lies in Kern County, as does

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

the bulk of the relevant evidence. The aircraft in question was in the possession of the County at

12

the time it was sold. Plaintiffs allege that the County removed major components from the aircraft

13

prior to Plaintiffs’ arrival in Kern County to retrieve the aircraft after they purchased it. They also

14

allege that the aircraft’s condition was misstated on the auction. Evidence relevant to the aircraft’s

15

condition is therefore likely to reside in Kern County, where the aircraft was located at the time of

16

the auction. For example, in support of their complaint, Plaintiffs submitted a bid to refurbish

17

missing equipment in the aircraft issued by Megahertz Avionics, Inc. of Bakersfield, California,

18

which is located in the Eastern District of California. ECF No. 1 at 10. Finally, the aircraft

19

remains today in Kern County.
As for the two federal witnesses, though they appear on the purchaser’s receipt as contacts

20
21

for the federal agencies involved with the sale,1 the receipt also lists a Kern County employee

22

named Ralph Tucker as the contact person for the auction. According to the County, Tucker will

23

testify as to several conversations he had with Plaintiffs regarding the condition of the aircraft.

24
25
26
27
28

1

Shirley Tarkington is listed as the contact for the General Services Administration’s Sales office
in San Francisco. Ms. Tarkington also signed the Aircraft Bill of Sale “c/o United States Dept of
Agriculture; Kern County Fire Department.” Cynthia Sanderson is listed as one of two contacts
for the “Owning Agency or Reporting Office,” the USDA Forest Service. Also listed as a contact
is Ralph Tucker. The contact under the “Property Location” section is Ralph Tucker, Kern
County Fire Meadows Field STA62.
3

1

Denny Decl., ECF No. 41 at 8 ¶ 3. The bulk of the witnesses relevant to Plaintiff’s allegations of

2

malfeasance are also employees of Kern County. Any ministerial role the two federal employees

3

in San Francisco may have played in facilitating the auction is outweighed by the central role

4

played by the witnesses located in the Eastern District of California.

5

IV.

6

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and in the

7

interest of justice, the Court Orders this action TRANFERRED to the United States District Court

8

for the Eastern District of California.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Dated: November 26, 2013
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4