Viesti Associates, Inc. v. McGraw-Hill Global Education Education Holdings, LLC et al
Filing
36
ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg denying 16 Motion to Transfer Case; denying 17 Motion to Dismiss. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
VIESTI ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Case No. 16-cv-07315-RS
Plaintiff,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
v.
12
13
14
MCGRAW-HILL GLOBAL EDUCATION
HOLDINGS, LLC, et al.,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
TRANSFER AND MOTION TO
DISMISS
Defendants.
15
16
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), defendants’ motions to transfer and motion to dismiss
17
are suitable for disposition without oral argument, and the hearing set for April 7th, 2017 is hereby
18
vacated. Both motions will be denied.
19
20
Motion to transfer
21
Defendants seek to transfer this action to the District of Colorado, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
22
§1404(a), which vests courts with discretion to order such transfers “[f]or the convenience of the
23
parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice . . . .” Defendants rely on the facts that (1) there
24
is no particular connection between this district and the parties or the subject matter of the
25
complaint, and (2) plaintiff has previously litigated related and/or similar claims against
26
defendants and others in the District of Colorado, which is where plaintiff is based. Defendants
27
also characterize plaintiff’s election to bring suit in this District as “forum shopping”—accusing
28
plaintiff of seeking to take advantage of a relatively recent Ninth Circuit ruling that may support a
1
conclusion that plaintiff has standing to bring this action.1
Under § 1404(a), the district court has discretion “to adjudicate motions for transfer
2
3
according to an ‘individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.’ ” Jones
4
v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir.2000) (quoting Stewart Org. v. Ricoh Corp.,
5
487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988)). The court must weigh multiple factors in determining whether transfer is
6
appropriate in a particular case. Jones, 211 F.3d at 498.
Those factors may include:
7
8
(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.
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
Jones, 211 F.3d at 498 (citing Stewart, 487 U.S. at 29–31).
A plaintiff’s choice of forum ordinarily is given substantial weight. See Decker Coal Co. v.
15
16
Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). That is less so, however, where
17
the plaintiff does not reside in the forum and/or there is no particular connection between the
18
controversy and the forum. See Williams v. Bowman, 157 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 1106 (N.D. Cal.
19
2001)(“[t]he degree to which courts defer to the plaintiff's chosen venue is substantially reduced
20
where the plaintiff does not reside in the venue or where the forum lacks a significant connection
21
to the activities alleged in the complaint.”)
Here, defendants have made no showing that any of the relevant factors tip strongly in
22
23
favor of a Colorado venue other than, perhaps, it might be more convenient for plaintiff to litigate
24
there, in its home state. Plaintiff, however, has disclaimed any interest in any such advantages to
25
it.
26
27
1
In prior litigation in Colorado, plaintiff received unfavorable rulings on the standing issue.
28
CASE NO.
2
16-cv-07315-RS
Defendants’ primary argument is their accusation that plaintiff is engaged in “forum
1
2
shopping”—looking for a venue that may be more hospitable with respect to standing issues.
3
Defendants have not shown, however, there to be anything improper about plaintiff electing to file
4
a new case in a venue that undisputedly is not an improper forum, even assuming plaintiff was
5
motivated largely by a perception that the law of that circuit may be advantageous to it. While
6
“forum shopping” involving any manipulation or gaming of the system is discouraged, defendants
7
have not shown the circumstances here rise to that level. Accordingly, the motion to transfer is
8
denied.
9
Motion to dismiss
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Defendants move to dismiss on res judicata grounds, arguing that in prior Colorado
12
litigation, plaintiff was found to lack standing to bring similar claims.2 The particular claims for
13
relief plaintiff is now pursuing, however, arose after the prior cases were decided. Because neither
14
the factual situation nor the law necessarily is the same as when the prior cases were decided, there
15
is no basis to conclude the claims are not tenable.3 Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is denied.
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
Dated: April 4, 2017
______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2
Defendants rely in part on litigation between plaintiff and a third-party. That action would, at
most give rise to collateral estoppel (issue preclusion), not res judicata (claim preclusion), as the
parties are not identical. Regardless of nomenclature, however, defendants have not shown the
present action is barred by any of the prior cases.
3
Defendants also argue that, in light of the prior rulings on standing, plaintiff must do more than
plead the bare fact that it owns the copyrights in issue. Defendants have not shown, however, how
the results of earlier cases somehow changes pleading standards in this case. The factual allegation
of copyright ownership is sufficient at this juncture.
28
CASE NO.
3
16-cv-07315-RS
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?