Coronado Transportation Systems, Inc. et al v. Sixt Franchise USA, LLC et al

Filing 30

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE. Case transferred to the Southern District of California. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 5/2/16. (sisS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2016)

Download PDF
1 DADY & GARDNER, P.A. 80 South Eighth Street 2 5100 IDS Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 3 Telephone: (612) 359-9000 4 Facsimile: (612) 359-3507 John D. Holland (Admitted Pro HacVice) 5 jholland@dadygardner.com 6 BRYAN CAVE LLP 7 120 Broadway Suite 300 8 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 576-2100 9 Facsimile: (310) 576-2200 10 Jonathan Solish, CA Bar No. 67609 jonathan.solish@bryancave.com 11 Kristy A. Murphy, CA Bar No. 252234 12 kristy.murphy@bryancave.com Attorneys for Plaintiff 13 Coronado Transportation Systems, Inc. 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 CORONADO TRANSPORTATION 17 Case No. 4:15-cv-04462 KAW SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff, 18 v. 19 SIXT FRANCHISE USA, LLC, SIXT 20 RENT A CAR LLC, ERICH SIXT, CRAIG OLSON, and FLORIAN DERN, 21 (PROPOSED) ORDER TRANSFERRING VENUE TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Defendants. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I. INTRODUCTION Now before the Court is an unopposed Motion to transfer venue filed by the remaining Plaintiff in the above-titled action, Coronado Transportation Systems, Inc. As such, the court must evaluate the appropriate factors in reviewing whether transfer is appropriate. See Tung Tai Grp. v. Fla. Transformer, Inc., No. 5:11-cv-02389 EJD(HRL), 2011 WL 3471400, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2011) (citing White v. ABCO 1 Eng’g Corp., 199 F.3d 140, 144 (3d Cir. 1999)). For the reasons set forth below, the 2 Court finds the transfer of venue to the Southern District of California is appropriate, 3 and therefore the Motion is GRANTED by this order. 4 II. LEGAL STANDARD Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404.(a), the Court may “[f]or the convenience of 5 6 parties and witnesses, in the interests of justice … transfer any civil action to any other 7 district … where it might have been brought.” The Court must undertake an 8 “‘individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness,’” and 9 determine whether three elements are satisfied: (1) the propriety of venue in the 10 transferor district, (2) whether the action could have been brought in the transferee 11 district, and (3) whether the transfer will serve the interests of justice and convenience 12 of the parties and witnesses. Tung Tai, 2011 WL 3471400, at *1 (quoting Jones v. GNC 13 Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000)). The Court weighs a series of 14 factors in determining whether the third element is satisfied including Plaintiff’s choice 15 of forum, the convenience of the parties and witnesses, ease of access to evidence, the 16 familiarity of the potential fora with applicable law, feasibility of consolidation, local 17 interests, and court congestion. Williams v. Bowman, 157 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 1106 (N.D. 18 Cal. 2001) (citing Royal Queentex Enters. Inc. v. Sara Lee Corp., No. C-99-4787 MJJ, 19 2000 WL 246599, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2000)). 20 III. 21 DISCUSSION First, the Court finds that the first two prongs of Section 1404(a) are satisfied 22 because venue is proper in this district, and the case could have been brought in the 23 Southern District of California. The action was originally filed in the United States 24 District Court for the Northern District of California based on the operations by a former 25 plaintiff, Adwin, LLC, at San Francisco International Airport. (See Dkt. 1 at paragraph 26 10.) However, the action could have been brought by the other remaining Plaintiff, 27 Coronado Transportation Systems, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) in the Southern District of 28 California because the Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in California (see 2 1 Dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 9-19), and a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims 2 took place in the Southern District (see 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a), (b) (2) – (3)); and Dkt. 19, 3 ¶¶ 9-20,52 (noting that Defendants sold the other, remaining Plaintiff a franchise for 4 operation at the San Diego Airport and, thereby, elected to do business in San Diego, 5 California). In addition, the Court finds that transferring the action to the Southern District of 6 7 California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the 8 interests of justice. Neither Plaintiff nor Defendants opposes the transfer. This weighs 9 heavily in favor of transfer. This Court finds that because venue is proper in this District, the action could 10 11 have been brought in the Southern District of California, and transferring the action to 12 the Southern District will serve the interests of justice and convenience of the parties 13 and witnesses, this case satisfies all three prongs of Section 1404(a). 14 IV. CONCLUSION 15 For the reasons set forth above the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion 16 and DIRECTS the Clerk to transfer this action to the Southern District of California. In 17 light of this decision, the Case Management Conference scheduled for May 24, 2016 is 18 VACATED. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 DATED: 5/2/16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?