Elpidio et al v. Union Pacific Railroad Company et al

Filing 32

ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting 19 Motion to Intervene; granting 20 Motion to Transfer Case (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2015)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
6

MONICA RODRIGUEZ ELPIDIO, et al.,

v.

8
9
10

Case No. 15-cv-3071-PJH

Plaintiffs,

7

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
COMPANY, et al.,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
INTERVENE AND MOTION TO
TRANSFER

Defendants.
United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Before the court are two motions filed by proposed intervenors Coachella Self

14

Storage LLC, James Pilcher, Susan Pilcher, Martin Wells and Susan Wells as trustees of

15

the Martin & Susan Wells Revocable Trust, and Charles Serrano and Barbara Sloan as

16

trustees of the Charles Serrano and Barbara Sloan 2012 Revocable Trust (collectively,

17

the “proposed intervenors”). The proposed intervenors have filed a motion to intervene in

18

the present suit and a motion to transfer this action to the Central District of California.

19

The court finds the matters suitable for resolution without a hearing, and thus VACATES

20

the October 7, 2015 hearing on the motions.

21

Importantly, the current plaintiffs in this suit have filed a statement of non-

22

opposition, indicating that they do not oppose intervention nor do they oppose transfer of

23

this action to the Central District of California. No defendant has filed an opposition to

24

either motion, the only response being a “statement” from defendant Kinder Morgan

25

informing the court of various developments in three similar cases pending in the Central

26

District.

27
28

First, regarding the motion to intervene, permissive intervention pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 24(b) provides that upon “timely application” a party may be permitted to

1

intervene “when an applicant’s claim or defense and the main action have a question of

2

law or fact in common.” In exercising its discretion, the court is to “consider whether the

3

intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original

4

parties.” Id. In sum, permissive intervention “requires (1) an independent ground for

5

jurisdiction; (2) a timely motion; and (3) a common question of law and fact between the

6

movant’s claim or defense and the main action.” Beckman Indus. v. International Ins.

7

Co., 966 F.2d 470, 473 (9th Cir. 1992).
The court finds that the proposed intervenors do meet these requirements, and in

8
9

light of the lack of opposition to the motion, the court GRANTS the motion to intervene.

10

Second, regarding the motion to transfer, the proposed intervenors set forth two

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

alternative bases for their motion: (1) the first-to-file rule, in light of the voluntary

12

dismissal of the first action filed in this district, and (2) the § 1404 convenience analysis.

13

Because the court finds that transfer is warranted under § 1404, it need not address the

14

first-to-file rule.
“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district

15
16

court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have

17

been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Section 1404(a) “is intended to place discretion in

18

the district court to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an ‘individualized, case-

19

by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.’” Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.,

20

487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (citation omitted). Thus, in considering whether to grant a motion

21

to transfer, the district court may consider any of a number of “case-specific factors.” See

22

id.

23

Although § 1404(a) lists three factors - convenience of parties, convenience of

24

witnesses, and the interest of justice - rulings in motions brought under § 1404(a) can

25

involve a number of other considerations. For example, the court can consider:

26

1) the location where the relevant documents were negotiated and executed;

27

2) the state most familiar with the governing law (in order to avoid confusion with

28

application of foreign law);
2

1

3) plaintiff’s choice of forum;

2

4) the parties’ contacts with the forum and the connection between plaintiff’s cause

3

of action and the chosen forum;

4

5) the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums and congestion of the

5

courts;

6

6) the ability to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses;

7

7) the ease of access to sources of proof and the convenience of the witnesses;

8

8) the relevant public policy of the forum state and whether there is a local interest

9

in having localized controversies decided at home; and
9) the unfairness of imposing jury duty on citizens in a forum unrelated to the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

action.

12

Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000); see also

13

Schwarzer, Tashima & Wagstaffe, Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial (2006) § 4:269, et

14

seq. (relevant factors may include relative ease of access to proof; reach of subpoena

15

power to secure witness attendance; the feasibility of consolidation with action pending

16

elsewhere; state that is most familiar with governing state law; relative means of parties;

17

relative docket congestion; plaintiff’s choice of forum; each party’s contacts with forum;

18

contacts relating to plaintiff’s cause of action in chosen forum; and differences in cost of

19

litigation in two forums).

20

The court finds that the interests of justice and judicial economy are served by

21

transfer to the Central District of California. In particular, the pendency of three cases

22

involving similar allegations, including one originally filed in this district then voluntarily

23

dismissed and re-filed in the Central District – and all three of which have been

24

consolidated in the Central District – demonstrate that the interests of justice are best

25

served by transferring this action to the Central District. Accordingly, the motion to

26

transfer is GRANTED.

27
28
3

1

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.

2

Da
ated: Septe
ember 18, 2015
2

3
4

__
__________
__________
__________
_______
PH
HYLLIS J. H
HAMILTON
Un
nited States District Ju
s
udge

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4