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