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)
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?