Thompson v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Filing
111
ORDER RECONSIDERING DENIAL OF MOTION TO TRANSFER AND TRANSFERING CASE. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/12/17. (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/12/2017)
1
2
3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
RANDALL THOMPSON,
7
8
9
No. C 16-3415 CW
Plaintiff,
v.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION,
et al.,
11
ORDER RECONSIDERING
DENIAL OF MOTION TO
TRANSFER AND
TRANSFERING CASE
Defendants.
12
13
________________________________/
On March 15, 2017, this Court denied a motion to transfer
14
this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern
15
District of California.
16
dismissed all claims against three of the Defendants in this case.
17
In the September 26, 2017 joint case management statement,
18
Defendants asserted that as a result of the dismissal, all of the
19
alleged events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred at Deuel
20
Vocational Institute (DVI), which is located in the Eastern
21
District of California.
22
directed the parties to meet and confer and be prepared to address
23
at the case management conference whether the Court should
24
reconsider its order denying Defendants’ transfer motion.
25
Following argument at the October 3, 2017 case management
26
conference, the Court hereby reconsiders the denial of the motion
27
to transfer and transfers this case to the Eastern District of
28
California.
On September 15, 2017, the Court
In a September 29, 2017 order, the Court
LEGAL STANDARD
1
2
“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the
3
interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil
4
action to any other district or division where it might have been
5
brought or to any district or division to which all parties have
6
consented.”
7
court has discretion to adjudicate motions for transfer according
8
to an individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience
9
and fairness.
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
“Under § 1404(a), the district
A motion to transfer venue under § 1404(a) requires
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
the court to weigh multiple factors in its determination whether
11
transfer is appropriate in a particular case.”
12
Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000).
13
a motion for transfer, the moving party must establish: (1) that
14
venue is proper in the transferor district; (2) that the
15
transferee district is one where the action might have been
16
brought; and (3) that the transfer will serve the convenience of
17
the parties and witnesses and will promote the interest of
18
justice.”
19
No. 13-cv-03307-SI, 2013 WL 5568345, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9,
20
2013) (citations omitted).
21
Jones v. GNC
“To support
Reflex Packaging, Inc. v. Audio Video Color Corp.,
The Ninth Circuit considers the following factors to
22
determine whether to transfer venue: “(1) plaintiff's choice of
23
forum, (2) convenience of the parties, (3) convenience of the
24
witnesses, (4) ease of access to the evidence, (5) familiarity of
25
each forum with the applicable law, (6) feasibility of
26
consolidation with other claims, (7) any local interest in the
27
controversy, and (8) the relative court congestion and time of
28
trial in each forum.”
Id. (citing Jones, 211 F.3d at 498-99.)
2
1
“The burden is on the defendant to show that, of the relevant
2
factors, the balance of convenience weighs in favor of transfer to
3
another district.”
4
Corp., No. 10-cv-02590, 2010 WL 3619565, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept.
5
13, 2010) (citing Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Savage,
6
611 F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979)).
TransPerfect Global, Inc. v. Motionpoint
DISCUSSION
7
8
9
As the parties agreed and the Court found previously, this
action could have been brought in the Eastern District of
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
California because a substantial part of the events giving rise to
11
the claim occurred in that District.
12
be proper in both districts, the Court evaluates which venue is
13
more convenient to the parties and the witnesses.”
14
Packaging, 2103 WL 5568345, at *3.
15
“Once venue is determined to
Reflex
At the time this Court denied the individual Defendants’
16
motion to transfer, there were seven Defendants in this action.
17
Defendants Theodore Abreu, Harry Newman, Thomas Bzoskie, and
18
Jerome Price are employed at DVI, working and residing in the
19
Eastern District of California.
20
Ronald Davis are employed at San Quentin State Prison, working and
21
residing in the Northern District of California.
22
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
23
operates both institutions.
24
District of California.
25
Defendants Margaret Hanna and
Defendant
Plaintiff resides in the Eastern
In denying the motion to transfer, the Court found that the
26
convenience of the parties weighed in favor of transfer to the
27
Eastern District, but only slightly due to the close proximity of
28
the two districts.
The Court also found that Plaintiff’s choice
3
1
of forum in the Northern District was entitled to deference
2
because at least some of the operative facts occurred in this
3
District and he was housed at San Quentin for twice as long as he
4
was housed at DVI.
5
Court found that the access to evidence weighed slightly in favor
6
of transfer; relative court congestion weighed against transfer;
7
and the convenience of the parties, forum’s familiarity with
8
applicable law, feasibility of consolidation, and local interest
9
in the controversy were neutral.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
With regard to the remaining factors, the
The dismissal of all claims against the two individual
11
Defendants who work and reside in the Northern District materially
12
changes this analysis.
13
individual Defendants are based on allegations of facts that
14
occurred solely at DVI.
15
The claims against the remaining
Plaintiff has a claim under Title II of the Americans with
16
Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132, against CDCR, which
17
operates both San Quentin and DVI.
18
alleges that he “had a right to be protected from injury and the
19
risk of injury due to his disability.”
20
(2AC) ¶ 57.
21
“refusing to follow the limitations and restrictions listed on the
22
Medical Classification Chrono and Comprehensive Accommodation
23
Chrono, denying plaintiff a wheelchair and other requested medical
24
devises, providing inadequate medical care, and failing to
25
accommodate his disability by, among other things, requiring him
26
to perform physical duties he was unable to perform due to his
27
disability.”
28
claim, the Court relied primarily on CDCR’s alleged failure to
4
In this claim, Plaintiff
Second Amended Complaint
He also alleges that CDCR violated the ADA by
Id. ¶ 56.
In denying CDCR’s motion to dismiss this
1
provide Plaintiff with an agreed-upon accommodation that he should
2
not be required to climb stairs at DVI.
3
dismissed all claims based on the individual Defendants’ alleged
4
failure to provide adequate medical care at San Quentin.
5
no part of Plaintiff’s ADA claim against CDCR has been dismissed,
6
that claim is largely, although not wholly, based on events that
7
occurred at DVI.
8
9
Also, the Court has
Although
That few, if any, of the operative events in this case took
place in the Northern District, and Plaintiff resides in the
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Eastern District, means that Plaintiff’s choice of forum in this
11
District is now entitled to limited weight.
12
Foundry Co. v. Pence, 403 F.2d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 1968) (“If the
13
operative facts have not occurred within the forum of original
14
selection and that forum has no particular interest in the parties
15
or the subject matter, the plaintiff's choice is entitled only to
16
minimal consideration.”).
17
Defendants are located in the Eastern District.
18
of the parties weighs decisively in favor of transfer following
19
the dismissal of all claims against the individual Defendants
20
employed at San Quentin.
21
California now has an increased local interest in the controversy
22
relative to the Northern District, and this factor also now weighs
23
somewhat in favor of transfer.
24
remaining factors (convenience of the parties, access to evidence,
25
forum’s familiarity with applicable law, feasibility of
26
consolidation, and relative court congestion) has not changed.
27
28
See Pac. Car &
Counsel for Plaintiff as well as for
The convenience
Likewise, the Eastern District of
The Court’s analysis of the
Previously, the Court found that two factors weighed slightly
in favor of transfer, while Plaintiff’s choice of forum and
5
1
relative court congestion weigh against transfer.
Now, however,
2
the convenience of the parties, the Eastern District of
3
California’s local interest in the controversy, and the access to
4
evidence all weigh in favor of transfer, while Plaintiff’s choice
5
of forum is entitled only to minimal weight.
6
congestion in the Eastern District of California weighs against
7
transfer, but this is not sufficient to overcome the other factors
8
given the lack of significant underlying facts based in the
9
Northern District.
The relative court
Accordingly, the Court finds that transfer
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and will
11
promote the interest of justice.
CONCLUSION
12
13
The Court RECONSIDERS the denial of the individual
14
Defendants’ motion to transfer venue.
15
this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern
16
District of California and close the file in this Court.
17
The Clerk shall transfer
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
20
Dated: October 12, 2017
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
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?