Airwair International Ltd. v. Cels Enterprises, Inc.

Filing 28

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting 19 Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

AIRWAIR INTERNATIONAL, LTD.,

9

Plaintiff,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

v.
CELS ENTERPRISES, INC. dba CHINESE
LAUNDRY,

No. C-13-4312 EMC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
(Docket No. 19)

12
13

Defendant.
___________________________________/

14
15
16
17

For the reasons stated on the record, the Court hereby GRANTS Cels’s motion to transfer
under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
There is almost nothing which ties this case to this District other than the fact that Plaintiff

18

filed suit here and has filed six similar suits against other Defendants. As stated at the hearing,

19

AirWair is not a resident of this district, and hence its choice of forum is entitled to little deference.

20

Fieldturf USA, Inc. v. Blue Sky Int’l, No. CIV S-11-2035 KJM-KJN, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141871,

21

at *8 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2012). As for the six additional cases that AirWair has pending in this

22

District, there is nothing in the record to indicate these cases are likely to be consolidated or that

23

there is a risk of inconsistent verdicts if they are not. The only benefit is the convenience to

24

AirWair’s counsel, but convenience of counsel is not considered for purposes of deciding whether a

25

venue is convenient for the purposes of § 1404(a).” Smith v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., No. C 11-2559 SI,

26

2011 WL 3904131, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2011).

27
28

While AirWair points to no evidence or witnesses in this district, Cels’s principal place of
business is in the Central District, and much of the critical evidence in this case will be found in the

1

Central District; Cels has identified four key witnesses who reside there. See In re Funeral

2

Consumers Antitrust Litig., No. C 05-01804 WHA, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48243, at *15 (N.D. Cal.

3

Sept. 23, 2005) (stating that, “[e]ven where a witness is an employee of a party and will be paid, the

4

disruption is still a hard fact[;] [t]he expenses of transportation, housing and meals, even if borne by

5

a party, are nonetheless authentic outlays”).

6
7
8
9

California.
The Clerk of the Court is instructed to transfer this case to the Central District of California
and close the file in this case.
This order disposes of Docket No. 19.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Accordingly, the Court grants Cels’s motion to transfer the case to the Central District of

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: March 10, 2014

15

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2