Advanced Transit Dynamics, Inc. v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc.

Filing 24

ORDER by Judge Donna M. Ryu denying 9 Motion to Transfer Case; denying 18 Motion to Strike (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/25/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
ADVANCED TRANSIT DYNAMICS, INC.,

12
Plaintiff,
13

No. C-11-00075-DMR

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE FOR
CONVENIENCE

v.
14
J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., et al.,
15
16

Defendants.
___________________________________/

17
Plaintiff Advanced Transit Dynamics, Inc. (“ATD” or “Plaintiff”), a Delaware corporation
18
with its principal place of business in California, filed suit against Defendant J.B. Hunt Transport,
19
Inc. in the Superior Court for the County of San Mateo. See Docket No. 1. Ex. A (“Compl.”).
20
Plaintiff alleges breach of contract, open book account, account stated, and action for price, seeking
21
damages of $105,727.88 related to the sale of 211 ATDynamics-Transtex Advanced Trailers Skirts
22
(“Trailer Skirts”). Compl. ¶¶ 20-41. Defendant, a Georgia corporation with its principle place of
23
business in Arkansas, denies the allegation and asserts, among other things, that Plaintiff is barred
24
from any recovery due to the negligent misrepresentation of material facts on its part. See Docket
25
No. 1. Ex. B (Answer). Defendant removed the action to the United States District Court for the
26
Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332 and §1441(b), and now moves to
27
transfer it to the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansans under 28 U.S.C.
28

1

§1404(a). Both parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)

2

and appeared for oral argument on Defendant’s motion on April 20, 2011. Having carefully

3

considered the parties’ papers, the evidence cited therein and the oral argument on the motions,1 the

4

Court hereby DENIES Defendant’s motion.
I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

5
6

On December 10, 2010, Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking the payment of $105,727.88 in the

7

Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo. See Compl. The complaint

8

stems from an August 2009 purchase agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant, pursuant to which

9

Defendant allegedly agreed to purchase 211 Trailer Skirts for a total of $305,950.00. See Compl. ¶
11. The complaint alleges that $105,727.88 of the purchase price was to be paid through the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) Region 2 Trailer Aerodynamics Program (“Region 2

12

Subsidy Program”). See Compl. ¶ 11. Cascade Sierra Solutions (“CSS”), with its principle place of

13

business in Oregon, agreed to administer the subsidy from the Region 2 Subsidy Program to

14

Defendant. See Compl. ¶ 6; Docket No. 12, Declaration of Erin Welsh (“Welsh Decl.”), Ex. 2. To

15

be eligible for the subsidy, Defendant was required to use the Trailer Skirts on motor carrier

16

transportation fleets operating, at least partially, in New York or New Jersey. See Docket No. 11,

17

Declaration of Andrew Smith (“Smith Decl.”) ¶ 7. The EPA ultimately refused to provide the

18

subsidy, however, because Defendant, which operates motor carrier transportation fleets throughout

19

much of North America, has no fleets operating in New York or New Jersey. See Docket No. 9,

20

Declaration of Kristi Noland (“Noland Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 8 & 11; Welsh Decl., Ex. 1. In August 2009,

21

Plaintiff delivered the 211 Trailer Skirts to Virginia, where Defendant does operate, and sent

22

invoices that requested all checks for payment be made to “ATDynamics, 245 Utah Avenue, South

23

San Francisco, CA 94080.” See Compl. ¶¶ 13 & 18; Smith Decl. ¶ 12, Ex. 3. Defendant paid

24

$200,222.12, but refused to pay the additional $105,727.88 on the grounds that it had been

25
26
27
28

1

On April 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed “Evidentiary Objections and Motion to Strike New Evidence
Submitted with Reply Brief to Motion to Transfer.” See Docket No. 18. The Court need not address these
objections, however, as it does not refer to the challenged evidence it making its ruling. The Motion to strike,
therefore, is denied as moot.

2

1

prevented from procuring the subsidy due to Plaintiff’s misrepresentations. See Compl. ¶ 19;

2

Docket No. 9 at 6.

3

On January 7, 2011, Defendant removed this action to the United States District Court for the

4

Northern District of California based on diversity of citizenship. It has now filed a Motion to

5

Transfer to the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, pursuant to 28

6

U.S.C. §1404(a).

7
8

II. DISCUSSION
Under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a), District Courts have discretion to adjudicate motions for transfer

Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotations and citations omitted). In

11
For the Northern District of California

using an “individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.” Jones v. GNC

10

United States District Court

9

order to prevail on a motion to transfer, the moving party must establish: (1) “the transferee district

12

is one where the action might have been brought”; and (2) “the transfer will serve the convenience

13

of the parties and witnesses and will promote the interest of justice.” Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

14

v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 820 F. Supp. 503, 506 (C.D. Cal. 1992). Since Plaintiff does not

15

dispute the first factor, the Court focuses only on the latter.2

16

In determining whether a transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and

17

will promote the interest of justice, a court should consider private and public interest factors

18

affecting the convenience of the forum. See Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805

19

F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). Private interest factors include the plaintiff’s choice of forum, the

20

parties’ convenience, and the witnesses’ convenience, while public interest factors include the local

21

interest in having controversies decided at home, the relative court congestion in each forum, and the

22

familiarity of each forum with the applicable law. See Id. A motion to transfer, however, should not

23

merely shift the inconvenience from the moving party to the opposing party. See Id. In other words,

24

Defendant here has to make a strong showing of inconvenience to warrant upsetting Plaintiff’s

25

choice of forum, which it has not done. See Id.

26
27
28

2

Defendant also does not dispute it is subject to personal jurisdiction in this Court.

3

1

A.

Private Interest Factors

2

Defendant argues that Western Arkansas is more convenient because it is closer for most of

3

the important witnesses, in particular for the participants of a June 19, 2009 meeting at Defendant’s

4

headquarters in Lowell, Arkansas where Defendant alleges Plaintiff made material

5

misrepresentations. Attendees of that meeting were two of Plaintiff’s personnel, one Transtex

6

Composite’s representative, and fourteen of Defendant’s employees who will testify about Plaintiff’s

7

misrepresentation. See Noland Decl. ¶ 13. Therefore, Defendant argues, Arkansas is the appropriate

8

forum as it is more convenient for the majority of witnesses in the case. The Court disagrees. First,

9

this is a contract dispute where one party is located in South San Francisco, where negotiations
occurred in California, Arizona and Arkansas, and where the agreement was performed in California

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

and Virginia. See Smith Decl. ¶¶ 3, 8 & 9; Docket No. 17, Supp. Declaration of Kristi Noland ¶¶ 8

12

& 10. In short, Northern California has a substantial connection to this case.

13

Second, Plaintiff maintains the vast majority of witnesses it expects to call, including four

14

CSS’s personnel in Oregon and nine ATD employees in California and Arizona, are located on the

15

west coast. See Smith Decl. ¶ 15. While the June 2009 meeting in Arkansas may be important for

16

Defendant’s affirmative defense, Plaintiff has the right to demonstrate every element necessary for

17

its claims, and to call the witnesses to do so. Thus, although it may be inconvenient for Defendant

18

to litigate the case in California, the transfer would merely shift that inconvenience rather than

19

eliminate it.

20

Third, as Plaintiff notes, fourteen of Defendant’s seventeen expected witnesses who reside in

21

Arkansas are employee-witnesses who appear to possess similar knowledge pertaining to the June

22

19, 2009 meeting. See Noland Decl. ¶ 13. The sheer number of witnesses, then, does not support

23

the notion that Arkansas would be a more convenient forum. In sum, the inconvenience to

24

Defendant and its witnesses if this case is litigated in California appears to be no greater than the

25

inconvenience to Plaintiff and its witnesses were the case transferred to Arkansas. Simply put, given

26

that Plaintiff filed its lawsuit in California, Defendant has not met its burden of showing that the

27

private factors weigh in favor of transfer.

28

4

1

B.

Public Interest Factors

2

The public interest factors here also favor this Court maintaining jurisdiction. First,

3

Defendant contends that this action should be decided in Arkansas because Arkansas has an interest

4

in enforcing agreements that are executed within its district. As discussed above, however, Northern

5

California has as strong an interest in this case as does Arkansas. Indeed, Plaintiff’s only office, as

6

well as a number of its key witnesses, are located here. The relative interest between the forums in

7

enforcing contractual obligations within their borders, then, does not weigh in favor of transfer.

would serve judicial efficiency, arguing that the Western District of Arkansas has fewer cases and

10

disposes of cases somewhat faster than this district. As both parties have consented to magistrate

11
For the Northern District of California

Second, as to the relative court congestion in each forum, Defendant insists that a transfer

9

United States District Court

8

court jurisdiction, however, the relative average caseloads or median times to trial for district court

12

judges does not factor into the analysis of whether transfer should be granted. Indeed, this Court has

13

set a trial date consistent with the parties’ joint request. Moreover, this case would likely be delayed

14

by several months were it now to be transferred and restarted in a new forum.

15

Lastly, as to the issue of each forum’s familiarity with the applicable law, Defendant

16

contends that, because both California and Arkansas law recognize the affirmative defense of

17

misrepresentation against a contract cause of action, Arkansas is the appropriate forum. The fact

18

that both courts would apply Defendant’s stated affirmative defense, however, seems to be a neutral

19

factor and certainly does not weigh in favor of transfer to Arkansas. Additionally, Plaintiff’s fourth

20

cause of action arises exclusively under California Commercial Code § 2709, with which this district

21

is likely to be more familiar. Accordingly, just as Defendant failed to make a strong showing of

22

private interest factors in favor of transfer, none of the public interest factors warrant upsetting

23

Plaintiff’s choice of forum here. Therefore, Defendant’s motion must be denied..

24
25
26
27
28

5

1

III. CONCLUSION

2

For the reasons stated above, the Defendant’s motion to transfer is DENIED.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated: April 25, 2011
_______________________________
DONNA M. RYU
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

6