Lapachet v. California Forensic Medical Group, Inc. et al

Filing 42

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING DEFENDANTS ( 14 , 20 MOTIONS TO TRANSFER.(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/7/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JEREMY LAPACHET, 8 Plaintiff, 9 10 11 v. Case No. 16-cv-06959-HSG ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO TRANSFER Re: Dkt. Nos. 14, 20 CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP, INC., et al., United States District Court Northern District of California Defendants. 12 13 On December 2, 2016, Plaintiff Jeremy Lapachet filed his complaint against the following 14 defendants: (A) County of Stanislaus (“County”) and Stanislaus County Sheriff Adam 15 Christianson (collectively, “County Defendants”); (B) California Forensic Medical Group, Inc. 16 (“CFMG”); Taylor Fithian, M.D.; Lani Antonio, P.A.; Veronica Berghorst, R.N.; Jessamae 17 Trinidad, R.N.; Grashika Devendra, Psychiatric R.N.; Tabitha King, L.V.N.; Amardeep Tawana, 18 L.V.N.; and Judith Alejandre, L.V.N. (collectively, “CFMG Defendants”); and (C) other unknown 19 defendants (“DOES 1 through 50”). Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.”). Plaintiff asserted eight causes of 20 action under federal and state law, including three causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 21 Compl. ¶¶ 73–131. He allegedly suffered grievous, life-altering injuries and became quadriplegic 22 as a result of Defendants’ acts and omissions between October 24, 2015, when he was placed in a 23 “sobering cell” while incarcerated at the County jail, and October 26, 2015, when he was 24 transported to the emergency room at the nearby Doctors Medical Center. Id. ¶¶ 25–52. For 25 example, CFMG’s nursing staff allegedly did not adequately monitor or care for Plaintiff despite 26 his abnormal vital signs, self-harming behavior (such as striking his own head and face), and 27 visible injuries (including bleeding from the head and hands), while County correctional officers 28 allegedly attacked him and violently dragged him out of his cell by his head and neck. Id. The County Defendants and the CFMG Defendants both filed motions to transfer the case 1 2 to the Eastern District of California (“Eastern District”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which 3 are now fully briefed. See Dkt. No. 14 (“County Mot.”); Dkt. No. 20 (“CFMG Mot.”). The Court 4 heard arguments on April 27, 2017. The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motions to transfer.1 5 I. LEGAL STANDARD “For the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court 7 may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought . . . 8 .” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The purpose of this statute is “to prevent the waste of time, energy and 9 money and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and 10 expense.” Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964) (internal quotation marks omitted). 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 6 The moving party bears the burden of showing that the transferee district is a “more appropriate 12 forum.” See Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2000). The district 13 court has broad discretion in deciding whether or not transfer. See Ventress v. Japan Airlines, 486 14 F.3d 1111, 1118 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[T]he district court’s decision to change venue is reviewed for 15 abuse of discretion. Weighing of the factors for and against transfer involves subtle considerations 16 and is best left to the discretion of the trial judge.” (citation and internal quotation marks 17 omitted)). District courts engage in a two-step analysis for motions to transfer. First, they determine 18 19 “whether the transferee district was one in which the action might have been brought by the 20 plaintiff.” Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 343–44 (1960) (internal quotation marks omitted). If 21 so, the courts engage in “an individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and 22 fairness.” Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29, (1988) (internal quotation marks 23 omitted). In this District, courts typically consider the following factors: (1) plaintiffs’ choice of 24 forum, (2) convenience of the parties, (3) convenience of the witnesses, (4) ease of access to the 25 evidence, (5) familiarity of each forum with the applicable law, (6) feasibility of consolidation 26 1 27 28 In the alternative, Defendants sought to dismiss or transfer the case for improper venue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), for failure to satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). County Mot. at 6–8; CFMG Mot. at 3–6. The Court does not reach these alternative arguments because it grants the motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). 2 1 with other claims, (7) any local interest in the controversy, and (8) the relative court congestion 2 and time to trial in each forum. See, e.g., Ironworks Patents LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 17- 3 cv-01958-HSG, 2017 WL 3007066, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2017); Perez v. Performance Food 4 Grp., Inc., No. 15-cv-02390-HSG, 2017 WL 66874, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2017); Brown v. 5 Abercrombie & Fitch Co., No. 4:13-cv-05205 YGR, 2014 WL 715082, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 6 2014); Wilson v. Walgreen Co., No. C-11-2930 EMC, 2011 WL 4345079, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 7 14, 2011); Vu v. Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc., 602 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1156 (N.D. Cal. 2009); 8 Williams v. Bowman, 157 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 1106 (N.D. Cal. 2001); Royal Queentex Enters. v. 9 Sara Lee Corp., No. C-99-4787 MJJ, 2000 WL 246599, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2000).2 “This list is non-exclusive, and courts may consider other factors, or only those factors which are pertinent 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 to the case at hand.” Martin v. Glob. Tel*Link Corp., No. 15-cv-00449-YGR, 2015 WL 2124379, 12 at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2015). 13 II. DISCUSSION Here, Plaintiff does not dispute that this case could have been brought in the Eastern 14 15 District. See Dkt. No. 33 (“Opp. I”) at 10; Dkt. No. 34 (“Opp. II”) at 10. The inquiry therefore 16 focuses on the convenience and fairness factors. 17 Most of the factors typically considered in this District have little import here. The 18 convenience of the Defendants’ employee witnesses is entitled to little weight because they can be 19 compelled by their employers to testify regardless of venue. See Martin, 2015 WL 2124379, at 20 *4. As to the remaining witnesses, the Court is persuaded that “the nexus of the events occurred 21 in the Eastern District” such that “logically the majority of witnesses will be located there.” See 22 Atayde v. Napa State Hosp., No. 16-cv-00038-TEH, 2016 WL 1089248, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 23 2016). Nevertheless, if this case is transferred to the Eastern District, it will be assigned to the 24 federal courthouse in Fresno, California, which is not substantially more or less convenient in 25 relation to Modesto, California, where the nexus of events occurred. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 26 27 28 2 These factors are also “[c]onsistent” with Ninth Circuit precedent. See Wilson, 2011 WL 4345079, at *2; see also Jones, 211 F.3d at 498–99 (listing examples of factors that courts may consider). 3 1 120(d) (cases arising in Stanislaus County assigned to Fresno courthouse); Dkt. No. 33-1, Exs. E– 2 F (reflecting similar driving times between courthouses and correctional facility where Plaintiff 3 was injured). Thus, the convenience of the witnesses is also neutral. Moreover, courts do not 4 typically consider the convenience of parties, like Plaintiff, who have chosen to bring a case in a 5 forum where they do not reside. See Perez, 2017 WL 66874, at *3; Brown, 2014 WL 715082, at 6 *4; Arreola v. Finish Line, No. 14-cv-03339-LHK, 2014 WL 6982571, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 7 2014). For the majority of Defendants, the Oakland and Fresno courthouses are almost 8 equivalently convenient, and even for Dr. Fithian, who allegedly lives and works in Monterey, 9 California, the difference in travel times is modest. See Compl. ¶ 8; Dkt. No. 33-1, Ex. C–D. Therefore, the convenience of the parties is also neutral. Furthermore, the ease of access to 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 evidence is neutral or carries minimal weight because documentary evidence can be produced 12 electronically. See Perez, 2017 WL 66874, at *4; Martin, 2015 WL 2124379, at *5; Brown, 2014 13 WL 715082, at *5. And to the extent that the County jail must be inspected, the location is more 14 or less equally convenient in relation to the two courthouses in question. Finally, the familiarity of 15 each forum with the applicable law is neutral, and the feasibility of consolidation is inapplicable.3 16 Consequently, the disposition of this motion turns on weighing Plaintiff’s choice of forum 17 against the Eastern District’s local interest in the controversy. As to the former, the plaintiff’s 18 choice of forum is usually given “great weight.” Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 19 1987). The Ninth Circuit has declared: In judging the weight to be accorded [the plaintiff’s] choice of forum, consideration must be given to the extent of [the parties’] contacts with the forum, including those relating to [the plaintiff’s] cause of action. Pacific Car & Foundry Co. v. Pence, 403 F.2d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 1968). If the operative facts have not occurred within the forum and the forum has no interest in the parties or subject matter, [the plaintiff’s] choice is entitled to only minimal consideration. Id. 20 21 22 23 24 3 25 26 27 28 In the exercise of its discretion, the Court declines, for reasons of policy and pragmatism, to consider the relative court congestion and time to trial in the each forum. See Perez, 2017 WL 66874, at *2 n.5 (“The Court does not compare the court congestion and time of trial in the two districts because ongoing application of this doctrine could have the unintended consequence of penalizing efficiency by effectively placing more cases in the districts with the shortest time to trial. In addition, the Court is somewhat skeptical of the ability of the Court or the parties to accurately and meaningfully capture these metrics as of today, which is the only timeframe that matters for this purpose.”) 4 Id. However, the weight of deference accorded is not a binary choice between “great weight” and 2 “minimal consideration.” The Ninth Circuit has found that “less deference” is owed to a 3 nonresident plaintiffs’ choice of forum. Gemini Capital Grp., Inc. v. Yap Fishing Corp., 150 F.3d 4 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Contact Lumber Co. v. P.T. Moges Shipping Co., 918 F.2d 5 1446, 1449 (9th Cir. 1990); Pac. Car, 403 F.2d at 954); see also Lucas v. Daiichi Sankyo Co., No. 6 C 11-0772 CW, 2011 WL 2020443, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 24, 2011) (declaring that nonresident 7 plaintiff’s choice of forum is owed “substantially reduced” deference).4 And courts have found 8 that less deference is owed to the plaintiff’s choice of forum where the operative facts did not 9 occur there. See Anderson v. County of Siskiyou, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41023, *7 (N.D. Cal. 10 Jan. 11, 2011) (“The deference otherwise accorded to the plaintiff’s choice of forum is further 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 undermined by the minimal nexus between this District and the events that form the basis of the 12 action.”) (citing Metz v. U.S. Life Ins. Co. in City of New York, 674 F. Supp. 2d 1141, 1146 (C.D. 13 Cal. 2009))). In short, “the degree to which courts defer to the plaintiff’s chosen venue is 14 substantially reduced where the plaintiff’s venue choice is not its residence or where the forum 15 lacks a significant connection to the activities alleged in the complaint.” Carolina Cas. Co. v. 16 Data Broad. Corp., 158 F. Supp. 2d 1044, 1048 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (internal quotation marks and 17 brackets omitted). 18 Here, considering the parties’ contacts with this District, including those related to 19 Plaintiff’s claims, the Court accords substantially reduced deference to Plaintiff’s choice of forum. 20 Plaintiff does not reside in this District. See Dkt. Nos. 1-1, 14-1. In addition, there is a relatively 21 minimal nexus between this District and the injuries Plaintiff suffered at the County jail between 22 October 24, 2015 and October 26, 2015, notwithstanding Plaintiff’s argument that those events 23 were “set into motion” by policies and procedures set at CFMG’s headquarters in this District. 24 See Opp. I at 12; Opp. II at 12. 25 26 27 28 4 Although Gemini and Contact Lumber address forum non conveniens, such cases are instructive for assessing motions to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). See Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986) (“This statute partially displaces the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens. Nonetheless, forum non conveniens considerations are helpful in deciding a § 1404 transfer motion.” (internal citations omitted)). 5 In contrast, the Eastern District has a strong local interest in deciding this controversy. 1 Courts have recognized the particular salience of this factor in cases regarding the treatment and 3 safety of prisoners. For example, in Atayde, where a prisoner had committed suicide while 4 incarcerated in a correctional facility located in the Eastern District, the court declared that it was 5 “in the Eastern District’s interest to determine whether the jail acts with deliberate indifference to 6 the safety of its prisoners . . . .” 2016 WL 1089248, at *4. In Williams, where a prisoner allegedly 7 suffered sexual harassment, assault, abuse, and intimidation at the hands of her doctor in a prison 8 located in the Eastern District, the court found that the Eastern District had a “strong” interest in 9 the controversy because that is “where the alleged wrong occurred.” 157 F. Supp. 2d at 1104, 10 1109. Moreover, the alleged existence of “a pattern of improper treatment of female inmates at 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 2 [the prison]” was “undoubtedly a concern to the Eastern District.” Id. at 1109–10. Similarly, 12 Plaintiff’s allegations raise serious concerns regarding the safety of prisoners, the quality of 13 medical care, and the behavior of correctional officers in the County jail. The Court agrees that 14 “citizens and taxpayers” in the Eastern District have “a strong local interest . . . [in] address[ing] 15 the adjudication of serious allegations involving local governmental entities and personnel in that 16 district.” See County Mot. at 11 (emphasis in original). Plaintiff’s choice to file suit in this District is entitled to substantially reduced deference 17 18 and is ultimately outweighed by the Eastern District’s strong local interest in deciding this 19 controversy. Therefore, Defendants have met their burden to show that the Eastern District is the 20 more appropriate forum. 21 III. 22 23 24 25 26 27 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to transfer. The Clerk is DIRECTED to transfer the case to the Eastern District of California, and to close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 9/7/2017 ______________________________________ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 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?