Atayde v. Napa State Hospital et al

Filing 40

ORDER granting in part 12 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction or Transfer Venue; granting 25 MOTION to Change Venue. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 03/21/16. (tehlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2016)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

LUCY ATAYDE,
Plaintiff,

5
6
7
8

v.
NAPA STATE HOSPITAL, et al.,

Case No. 16-cv-00038-TEH
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS TO TRANSFER VENUE

Defendants.

9
10

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Napa State Hospital and related

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

parties’ motion to dismiss or transfer venue and Defendant California Forensic Medical

12

Group and related parties’ motion to transfer venue. Having carefully considered the

13

parties’ written arguments, the Court finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral

14

argument. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons stated below, the Court hereby GRANTS

15

Defendants’ motions.

16
17

BACKGROUND

18

This action arises from the death of Richard Ramirez, who committed suicide while

19

in custody at the John Latorraca Correctional Facility (“JLCF”) in Merced, California. Mr.

20

Ramirez was a twenty-seven year old man who had been diagnosed with a personality

21

disorder and psychotic disorder. Compl. ¶ 25 (Docket No. 1). He was arrested on August

22

23, 2014, and held as a pretrial detainee at JLCF. Id. ¶ 26. While in custody, Mr. Ramirez

23

attempted suicide multiple times, often in the presence of others. Id. ¶¶ 64; 70; 71. On

24

October 9, 2014, Mr. Ramirez was “deemed appropriate for admission to Napa State

25

Hospital,” according to a letter from Defendant Dana White, R.N., but was not transferred

26

to the hospital. Id. ¶ 74. On October 24, 2014, the County of Merced Superior Court

27

issued an order finding that Mr. Ramirez was mentally incompetent to stand trial, ordering

28

that Mr. Ramirez be committed to Napa State Hospital or another appropriate facility,

1

ordering the Sheriff of Merced County to deliver Mr. Ramirez to the hospital, and

2

authorizing the hospital to involuntarily administer antipsychotic medication as prescribed.

3

Commitment Order at 2-3, Ex. A to Compl. (Docket No. 1-1). Mr. Ramirez was never

4

transferred to any hospital, and on December 15, 2014, he committed suicide in a

5

segregated cell at JLCF. Compl. ¶¶ 100, 101.

6

On January 5, 2016, Lucy Atayde (“Plaintiff”), Mr. Ramirez’s mother, filed her

7

complaint in this Court alleging violations under federal and state law relating to

8

Defendants’ alleged deliberate indifference to Mr. Ramirez’s medical needs. Id. at 1. On

9

February 2, 2016, Defendants Napa State Hospital, California Department of State
Hospitals (“CDSH”), CDSH Director Molly Matteucci, and Dana White, R.N.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

(collectively “State Defendants”) moved to dismiss the Complaint or transfer venue to the

12

Eastern District of California. Docket No. 12. On February 8, 2016, Defendants

13

California Forensic Medical Group (“CFMG”), Taylor Fithian, M.D., Heather Goode,

14

M.D., Sean Ryan, R.N., Deborah Mandujano, R.N., Corina Denning, R.N. (collectively

15

“CFMG Defendants”), County of Merced, former Sheriff Tom Cavallero, and Under

16

Sheriff Jason Goins (collectively “County Defendants”) moved to transfer venue, also to

17

the Eastern District. Docket No. 25.

18
19
20

LEGAL STANDARD
“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district

21

court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have

22

been brought . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In order to transfer venue, a court “must

23

therefore make two findings: first, that the transferee court is one where the action ‘might

24

have been brought,’ and second, that the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the

25

interest of justice favor transfer.” Minh Hong v. Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC, No. 12-CV-

26

1756-TEH, 2012 WL 5077066, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2012) (citation omitted).

27
28

“The convenience of witnesses is often the most important factor considered by the
court” when deciding a motion to transfer. Trujillo v. GT USA, Inc., No. 09-CV-51792

1

MMC, 2010 WL 809505, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2010). In evaluating the convenience of

2

the parties and witnesses, courts may consider:

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

(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 attendance
of unwilling non-party witnesses, and (8) the ease of access to
sources of proof.
Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000). Additional factors
include the feasibility of consolidation of other claims and the relative congestion of the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

courts. Barnes & Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp., 823 F. Supp. 2d 980, 993 (N.D. Cal. 2011). A

12

motion to transfer lies within the broad discretion of the district court, and must be

13

determined on an individualized basis. Jones, 211 F.3d at 498. The party seeking to

14

transfer bears the burden of persuasion. See Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v.

15

Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979).

16
17
18

DISCUSSION
The parties do not dispute that this action “might have been brought” in the Eastern

19

District. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Thus, it is Defendants’ burden to demonstrate that the

20

convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interest of justice favor a transfer of

21

venue. Id. Many of the factors that the Court may weigh in considering a motion to

22

transfer venue are either neutral or insignificant in this case – for example, there are no

23

governing agreements, both forums are familiar with the governing law, and most sources

24

of proof would be documents which can be easily accessed from any location

25

electronically. The most salient factors in the instant case are the plaintiff’s choice of

26

forum, relevant contacts with the respective forums, costs of litigation, and court

27

congestion. These factors are discussed in turn below.

28

3

1

I.

DEFENDANTS SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATE THAT THE

2

CONVENIENCE OF THE PARTIES AND WITNESSES AND THE

3

INTERESTS OF JUSTICE FAVOR TRANSFER

4

A.

5

Plaintiff argues that her choice of forum should be given “substantial” weight.

6

Opp’n to State Mot. at 10. Indeed, a plaintiff’s choice of forum is ordinarily afforded

7

deference, as courts assume that plaintiffs choose to file in the most convenient court. See

8

Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986).

9

However, courts afford a plaintiff’s choice of forum less deference where, as here, the

Plaintiff’s choice of forum

plaintiff does not reside in the district in which she filed. See Gemini Capital Grp., Inc. v.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Yap Fishing Corp., 150 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff listed her county of

12

residence on her Complaint as Merced. Civil Cover Sheet (Docket No. 1-2).

13

Plaintiff does not deny the fact that she does not reside in the Northern District of

14

California; rather, she states that she “filed suit here because significant acts and omissions

15

leading to her son’s death occurred in Napa.” Opp’n to State Mot. at 10. However, the

16

Court is not persuaded that “significant acts and omissions” occurred in the Northern

17

District; in fact, the Court finds otherwise. In Anderson v. County of Siskiyou – a case with

18

alarmingly similar facts – the plaintiff’s choice of forum was found to be “undermined by

19

the minimal nexus between [the Northern District of California] and the events that form

20

the basis of the action.” No. 10-CV-1428-SBA, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41023, at *7 (N.D.

21

Cal. Jan. 11, 2011). Notably, in Anderson, the plaintiff had received treatment at the Napa

22

State Hospital, and his suicide occurred after he was returned to the Siskiyou County Jail.

23

Id. at *3. Here, Mr. Ramirez was never transferred to, nor received any in-person

24

treatment from, the Napa State Hospital.

25

The core allegations of the Complaint center on Mr. Ramirez’s treatment, and

26

eventual suicide, while in custody at JLCF. Plaintiff contends that “incompetent remote

27

telepsychiatry occurred with the physicians in Monterey,” but Plaintiff cites no authority

28

4

1

for the proposition that a phone call between parties residing in two different districts

2

necessarily occurs in one district or the other. Opp’n to State Mot. at 10.

3

For these reasons, the Court finds that the majority of the salient events forming the

4

basis for Plaintiff’s Complaint transpired in Merced County, which lies in the Eastern

5

District. Taking this into account as well as Plaintiff’s residence in the Eastern District,

6

the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s choice of forum is entitled to minimal deference.

7

B.

8

In analyzing which district is a more convenient forum for the parties and witnesses,

9

Contacts with the respective forums

courts consider contacts with the respective forums, and therefore this Court must again
highlight the fact that the majority of the major events leading up to Mr. Ramirez’s suicide

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

occurred in Merced County – and more specifically, JLCF. Compare Compl. ¶¶ 25-29,

12

39-42, 44-48, 50-59, 61, 63-67, 70-73, 76-77, 87-95, 97-101 (concerning Mr. Ramirez’s

13

treatment at JLCF), with ¶¶ 38, 43, 49, 68-69, 75 (concerning Mr. Ramirez’s

14

telepsychiatry). Additionally, Plaintiff and the majority of the Defendants reside in the

15

Eastern District. Therefore, the number of contacts with the Eastern District overwhelm

16

those in the Northern District.

17

CFMG Defendants identify twelve additional witnesses who reside in the Eastern

18

District and appear to have relevant information for Plaintiffs’ claims. See Varini Decl.

19

(identifying employees of JLCF, first responders to Mr. Ramirez’s suicide, officers who

20

investigated Mr. Ramirez’s death, and a doctor who performed the autopsy, among others)

21

(Docket No. 25-1). The Court notes that Plaintiff disputes the importance of the testimony

22

of the CFMG Defendants’ listed witnesses. However, tellingly, Plaintiff has failed to

23

identify any non-party witnesses who reside in the Northern District, and the only

24

witnesses who do reside in this district are the State Defendants, who now move to transfer

25

the case to the Eastern District. While Defendants have not specifically identified the

26

testimony of the witnesses in the Eastern District and its relevance, the Court nonetheless

27

finds that Defendants have made a strong showing that the nexus of the events occurred in

28

the Eastern District; thus, logically the majority of witnesses will be located there. For
5

1

these reasons, the Court finds that the number of contacts with the Eastern District favors

2

transfer.

3

C.

Costs of litigation

4

Plaintiff contends that travelling to the Eastern District will impose greater costs on

5

her, due to her attorneys’ location in the Northern District. Pl.’s Opp’n to CFMG Mot. at

6

23. However, the convenience of counsel is not a relevant factor under §1404(a).

7

Pralinsky v. Mutual of Omaha Ins., No. 08-CV-3191-MHP, 2008 WL 4532563, at *2

8

(N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2008). To the extent that Plaintiff attempts to use her counsel’s costs as

9

a proxy for her costs, the argument is weakened by the contingency fee nature of this case.
Defendants point out that Plaintiff resides in the Eastern District, and Plaintiff has not

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

responded with any additional evidence other than her attorneys’ travel expenses that

12

would make litigation in the Northern District more costly than the Eastern District.

13

Therefore, the costs of litigation factor weighs in favor of transfer.

14

D.

Court congestion

15

Finally, Plaintiff contends that the congestion of the Courts in the Eastern District

16

would subject Plaintiff to undue delay and therefore deny Plaintiff justice. Opp’n to

17

CFMG Mot. at 22. While Court congestion is a factor courts may consider in ruling on a

18

motion to transfer, courts do not always afford the factor great weight, especially if other

19

factors indicate that a case should be transferred. See, e.g., Bergman v. Brainin, 512 F.

20

Supp. 972, 975 (D. Del. 1981). Here, the lighter caseload per judge in this district is the

21

strongest factor against transfer, but Defendants have demonstrated that the factors

22

outlined above strongly favor transfer. Furthermore, the interests of justice weigh in favor

23

of transfer when the Court considers which forum, congestion aside, has a greater interest

24

in resolving the litigation. The JLCF is located in the Eastern District of California; thus, it

25

is in the Eastern District’s interest to determine whether the jail acts with deliberate

26

indifference to the safety of its prisoners or consciously disregards orders from Superior

27

Courts within the Eastern District.

28

6

For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that convenience of the parties and the

1
2

witnesses and the interests of justice outweigh Plaintiff’s choice of forum such that the

3

Court finds the case must be transferred to the Eastern District of California. The Court

4

accordingly GRANTS Defendants’ motions to transfer venue.1

5
6

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that Defendants have met their burden

7

of persuasion by demonstrating that the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the

9

interests of justice outweigh the deference accorded to Plaintiff’s choice of forum. For

10

these reasons, Defendants’ motions to transfer are hereby GRANTED. The Clerk shall

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

transfer the instant action to the Eastern District of California, and shall terminate any

12

pending dates and deadlines.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated: 03/21/16

17

_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

As the Court has granted the motions to transfer, it need not reach the State
Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
7