Erickson Productions Inc et al v. Kraig R Kast

Filing 452

ORDER Denying 448 Motion for Intradistrict Transfer filed by Kraig Rudinger Kast. Case Management Statement due by 6/28/2023. Further Case Management Conference set for 7/5/2023 01:30 PM in Oakland, - Videoconference Only. Signed by Chief Mag istrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 5/19/2023. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/19/2023)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ERICKSON PRODUCTIONS INC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No. 13-cv-05472-DMR
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
INTRADISTRICT TRANSFER

v.
KRAIG RUDINGER KAST, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 448

Defendants.
On April 5, 2023, the Ninth Circuit reversed this court’s February 12, 2021 judgment

13

awarding Plaintiffs Erickson Productions, Inc. and Jim Erickson $450,000 in statutory damages

14

for Defendant Kraig Kast’s willful copyright infringement and remanded the case for a jury trial

15

on the issues of willfulness and statutory damages. Erickson Prods., Inc. v. Kast, No. 21-15459,

16

2023 WL 2783243, at *2 (9th Cir. Apr. 5, 2023). On April 24, 2023, Kast, who is representing

17

himself, filed a motion to withdraw his consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction and to reassign the

18

case to the San Francisco courthouse. [Docket No. 448.] On April 26, 2023, Chief Judge Richard

19

Seeborg denied Kast’s motion to withdraw consent and noted that determination of the transfer

20

motion was reserved for the undersigned. [Docket No. 450.] The motion to transfer is suitable for

21

resolution without a hearing. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

22

Kast asks the court to move the trial to the San Francisco courthouse, which the court

23

construes as a motion to transfer the action from the Oakland Division to the San Francisco

24

Division of this district. Under the Local Rules, transfers to a different division are permitted in

25

certain circumstances:

26
27
28

Whenever a Judge finds, upon the Judge’s own motion or the motion
of any party, that (1) a civil action has not been assigned to the proper
division within this district in accordance with this rule, or (2) that the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice
will be served by transferring the action to a different division within

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

the district, the Judge may order such transfer, subject to the
provisions of the Court’s Assignment Plan.

2

Civ. L.R. 3-2(h). Subsection (2) of the rule is consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 1404(b), which provides

3

that “[u]pon motion, consent or stipulation of all parties, any action, suit or proceeding of a civil

4

nature or any motion or hearing thereof, may be transferred, in the discretion of the court, from the

5

division in which pending to any other division in the same district.” Intradistrict transfers

6

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(b) “are discretionary transfers subject to the same analysis as under

7

28 U.S.C. [§] 1404(a), which governs interdistrict transfers.” Stribling v. Picazo, No. 15-CV-

8

03337-YGR, 2018 WL 620146, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2018). Section 1404(a) states, “[f]or the

9

convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any

10

civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or

11

division to which all parties have consented.”
Kast argues that the San Francisco courthouse is closer to his home and is more accessible

12
13

to him via public transportation, although he does not state where he lives.1 Kast asserts that he

14

does not have access to a car and that a trial in Oakland would be a “hardship” for him. Mot. 10.

15

According to Kast, traveling to Oakland from his home “would be time consuming and expensive

16

and make it difficult for [him] to prepare his defense, appear in pre-trial meetings and appear for

17

trial.” Id.

18

Given the existence of numerous public transportation options close to the Oakland

19

courthouse, as well as the close proximity of the courthouses in the two divisions, the court

20

concludes that Kast has failed to show that he or any other party or witness would face any

21

difficulty or hardship if they are required to appear for trial or other proceedings in Oakland.

22

Accordingly, the motion to transfer is denied. See Safarian v. Maserati N. Am., Inc., 559 F. Supp.

23

2d 1068, 1072 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (where there was “only a modest distance” between courthouses

24

at issue, concluding that “the convenience of the parties and witnesses does not strongly favor one

25

Division over the other” and denying motion for intradistrict transfer).
The court will conduct a further case management conference via Zoom webinar on July 5,

26
27
28

1

Kast’s mailing address is a post office box in Foster City, California.
2

2023 at 1:30 p.m. A joint CMC statement is due by June 28, 2023.

2

S

a

onn
Judge D

H

ER

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

FO

RT

8

R NIA

______________________________________
Donna M. Ryu
Chief Magistrate Judge
M. Ryu

7

United States District Court
Northern District of California

DERED

O OR
IT IS S

NO

6

Dated: May 19, 2023

LI

5

UNIT
ED

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

RT
U
O

3

ISTRIC
ES D
TC
T
A
T

A

1

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C