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