Alert Enterprises, Inc. v. Johnson Controls, Inc.,

Filing 43

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting 26 Defendant's Motion to Change Venue. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/26/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ALERT ENTERPRISES, INC., Plaintiff, 8 9 10 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) v. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.,, Docket No. 26 Defendant. 12 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 11 Case No. 16-cv-02900-EMC 13 Plaintiff Alert Enterprise, Inc. (“Alert”) initiated this case in state court, asserting claims 14 that Defendant Johnson Controls, Inc. (“JCI”) breached a contract entered into by the parties and 15 further breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. JCI removed the case to 16 federal court (on the basis of diversity jurisdiction) and subsequently filed a counterclaim against 17 Alert, asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of express limited warranties, and implied 18 contractual indemnity. Both parties’ claims relate to work that was done by JCI and Alert for a 19 third-party SCS, which is based in Georgia. 20 Currently pending before the Court is a motion to transfer the instant case from the 21 Northern District of California to the Northern District of Georgia. The Court held a hearing on 22 JCI’s motion on August 25, 2016, and ruled that the case should be transferred. This order 23 memorializes and supplements the Court’s rulings made at the hearing. 24 Title 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides in relevant part as follows: “For the convenience of 25 parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any 26 other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which 27 all parties have consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In the instant case, JCI seeks a transfer to the 28 Northern District of Georgia, which is where third-party SCS is located. There is no dispute 1 between the parties that Alert could have filed suit against JCI in the Northern District of Georgia. 2 Thus, the only question is whether a transfer is for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, 3 and in the interest of justice. JCI has the burden of proving that a transfer is warranted. See 4 Robert Bosch Healthcare Sys. v. Cardiocom, LLC, No. C-14-1575 EMC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5 81156, at *9 (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2014) (stating that the moving party “bears the burden of 6 establishing the propriety of a § 1404 transfer”). 7 In resolving the pending motion, the Court has considered the factors that the Ninth Circuit 8 and district courts therein have identified as significant, see id. at *10-11 (listing factors), 9 including, e.g., the plaintiff’s choice of forum, where the contract was performed, and where significantly, the center of gravity for this lawsuit is Georgia, where SCS is based. Although Alert 12 For the Northern District of California critical witnesses are located. The totality of the circumstances weighs in favor of transfer. Most 11 United States District Court 10 performed work for SCS remotely in California, it also performed work for SCS in Georgia. 13 Moreover, Alert claims mismanagement of the SCS project by JCI, and the head of JCI’s team is 14 located in Georgia and worked on the SCS project daily in Georgia. SCS employees are also 15 largely based in Georgia, and their testimony will be critical in this case, as they will explain why 16 SCS selected Alert, what SCS expected Alert and JCI to do, and why SCS ultimately decided to 17 terminate use of Alert’s products/services. 18 The Court also notes it appears there is a pending dispute between SCS and JCI arising out 19 of the same transaction and, if a lawsuit were initiated by either company against the other, it 20 would likely be brought in Georgia. In addition, while the Court affords some deference to Alert’s 21 choice of forum – its home forum where Alert performed at least some of the work for SCS – that 22 factor is not dispositive in light of the above factors. Furthermore, it is not unreasonable to 23 characterize Alert’s lawsuit, while not in bad faith, as being somewhat anticipatory in nature. See 24 Seeberger Enters. v. Mike Thompson Rec. Vehicles, Inc., 502 F. Supp. 2d 531, 538-39 (W.D. Tex. 25 2007) (stating that, “[w]hile some of Plaintiffs’ likely motivations for filing suit first in the district 26 in which Plaintiffs’ primary place of business is located, such as convenience and cost, are 27 legitimate, the anticipatory nature of the filing of the instant suit makes the Court inclined to 28 accord less deference to Plaintiffs’ choice of forum”); Royal Queentex Enters. v. Sara Lee Corp., 2 1 No. C 99-4787 MJJ, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10139, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2000) (stating that, 2 “[w]hile plaintiff's choice of forum is to be given great weight, that choice is not the final word[;] 3 [c]ircumstances in which a plaintiff's chosen forum will be accorded little deference include cases 4 of anticipatory suits and forum shopping”). 5 Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS JCI’s motion to transfer. The Clerk of the Court 6 is instructed to transfer this case to the Northern District of Georgia and close the file in this case. 7 This order disposes of Docket No. 26. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 12 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 11 13 Dated: August 26, 2016 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?