United States of America, et al v. North American Health Care, et al

Filing 64

ORDER DENYING 51 MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE. Case Management Statement due by 9/30/2015. Case Management Conference set for 10/7/2015 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 09/04/2015. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/4/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Case No. 14-cv-02401-WHO

Plaintiffs,
8
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
TRANSFER VENUE

9
NORTH AMERICAN HEALTH CARE,
INC., et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendants.

12

Re: Dkt. No. 51

This qui tam action alleges violations of the Federal, Washington, and California False

13

Claims Acts and the California Labor Code, and also asserts a cause of action for wrongful

14

discharge. It was originally filed in the Eastern District of California based upon the fact that

15

“defendants transact business in [that] district, market and promote its [sic] services to residents in

16

[that] district, and operate facilities in [that] district.” Compl. ¶ 20 (Dkt. No. 1). In May of 2014,

17

the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California moved to transfer the

18

case from the Eastern District of California to this district based upon an ongoing investigation

19

involving the same conduct of defendants that is alleged in this case. Dkt. Nos. 11, 62 at 2. This

20

motion was granted. Dkt. No. 13.

21

Defendants now move to transfer this case to the Central District of California. Dkt. No.

22

51. They assert that no defendant is located in this district, the allegations in the Complaint have

23

no connection with this district, all of the potential witnesses reside in the Central District, and

24

defendant North American Healthcare is currently in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings in the

25

Central District. Id. Plaintiff opposes this motion, as does the United States, which submitted a

26

Statement of Interest and requests that I deny defendants’ motion. Dkt. Nos. 60, 62.

27
28

Under 28 U.S.C. section 1404, a district court may transfer a case to another district in
which it could have been brought “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of

1

justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404. The plaintiff’s choice of forum is entitled to deference, and when a

2

defendant moves to transfer, courts balance this preference “with the burden of litigating in an

3

inconvenient forum.” Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir.

4

1986). Courts look to private interests (such as ease of access to sources of proof, availability of

5

compulsory process, and cost of obtaining attendance of witnesses) and public factors (such as

6

court congestion and the interest in having a controversy decided locally) in making this

7

evaluation. Id. “The defendant must make a strong showing of inconvenience to warrant

8

upsetting the plaintiff's choice of forum.” Id.
Defendants have not met this burden. Although it is true that the defendants and some

10

witnesses are located in the Central District, this does not overcome the deference given to the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

relator-plaintiff’s choice of forum. Defendant North American Health Care, Inc. provides services

12

to 36 nursing home facilities throughout the Western United States, not just in the Central District,

13

and there will be witnesses not located in the Central District. It does business in this district as

14

well and, as the Eastern District of California has already determined, venue is proper here.

15

Moreover, the United States is the real party in interest in this case and has filed a Statement of

16

Interest supporting venue here. Dkt. No. 62. The government apparently does so because the

17

local U. S. Attorney’s Office has been investigating defendants, has accumulated evidence

18

(including documents and witnesses) that is currently located in this district, and is closely

19

monitoring this litigation. In evaluating the private and public interests, I see no strong showing

20

of inconvenience in maintaining venue here that would warrant upsetting the plaintiff’s choice of

21

forum.
I find that this matter is appropriate to resolve without oral argument pursuant to Civil

22
23

Local Rule 7-1(b), and VACATE the hearing currently set for September 9, 2015. Defendants’

24

motion to transfer venue is DENIED.1
There is a motion to dismiss currently set for hearing on October 7, 2015. I will hold a

25
26
27
28

1

Defendants’ request to conduct discovery into the circumstances surrounding the United States’
request for transfer to the Northern District is DENIED. They provide no basis for this request. I
have reviewed the United States’ transfer request and find it to be legally justified.
2

1

case management conference then as well. The parties shall file a Joint Case Management

2

Statement on or before September 30, 2015, in accordance with the Local Rules and Standing

3

Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California regarding the Contents of Joint Case

4

Management Conference Statement.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 4, 2015
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3