Lauer v. Van Wormer

Filing 23

ORDER that defendants motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, or in the alternative, to transfer venue 12 is GRANTED in accordance with this order. The clerk of court shall TRANSFER this action, 2:12-cv-0020-LRH-VCF, to the United Sta tes District Court for the Southern District of California. Plaintiffs motion for entry of clerks default 9 ; motion for sanctions 15 ; and motion to show cause 20 are DENIED. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 7/27/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS) [Transferred from Nevada on 7/30/2012.]

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

9

ROBERT LAURER,

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

FRANK VAN WORMER,

13

Defendant.

2:12-CV-0020-LRH-VCF
ORDER

14
15

Before the court is defendant Frank Van Wormer’s (“Van Wormer”) motion to dismiss for

16

lack of personal jurisdiction, or in the alternative, to transfer venue. Doc. #121 . Plaintiff Robert

17

Laurer (“Laurer”) filed an opposition (Doc. #14) to which Van Wormer replied (Doc. #16).

18

Also before the court are plaintiff’s motion for entry of clerk’s default (Doc. #9); motion for

19

sanctions (Doc. #15); and motion to show cause (Doc. #20).

20

I.

21

Facts and Procedural History
This is a declaratory relief action between plaintiff Laurer and defendant Van Wormer as to

22

the title of an airplane that was housed in Las Vegas, Nevada. As an investment, Van Wormer, an

23

eighty-one year old living in southern California, purchased an airplane with the help of an

24

intermediary. The intermediary allegedly had Van Wormer sign several loan and federal aviation

25
26

1

Refers to the Court’s docket number.

1

documents before they were completely filled out and then filled in the documents with the

2

intermediary’s address and information.

3

Van Wormer defaulted on the loan and security agreement for the airplane as well as several

4

mechanics’ liens that the intermediary had not paid. Subsequently, in April 2004, the bank took

5

possession of the airplane and filed a certificate of repossession with the Federal Aviation

6

Administration but left the plane in the same hangar in Las Vegas.

7

While the plane was left in Las Vegas, plaintiff Laurer allegedly purchased the airplane

8

from Dan Scanlon (“Scanlon”), a mechanic who worked on the plane and allegedly had a

9

mechanic’s lien for work performed. Scanlon transferred his interest in the airplane which he

10

claimed he received from Van Wormer for not paying for the repairs and upkeep. Laurer began to

11

clear the title to the airplane and discovered not only the certificate of possession, but an ownership

12

interest still held by Van Wormer. Subsequently, Laurer filed the underlying declaratory relief

13

action to determine the parties’ interest in the airplane and to extinguish any interest in the airplane

14

held by Van Wormer. Doc. #1. Thereafter, Van Wormer filed the present motion to dismiss for lack

15

of personal jurisdiction, or in the alternative, to transfer venue. Doc. #12.

16

II.

17

Discussion
A district court may transfer any civil action to another district where the action may have

18

been brought in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties and witnesses. 28

19

U.S.C. § 1404(a). A court evaluating a motion to transfer venue weighs multiple factors including

20

the parties contacts with the chosen forum, the ease of access to sources of proof and witnesses, and

21

the difference in the cost of litigation between the two districts. See Jones v. GNC Franchising,

22

Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000).

23

Here, those factors weigh in favor of transferring venue. First, defendant Van Wormer has

24

never lived in Nevada, never conducted business in Nevada, and alleges that the address provided

25

on the FAA and loan documents was the address of the intermediary who was defrauding him.

26

2

1

Second, many of the relevant witnesses to both the declaratory relief action and Van Wormer’s

2

defense claims are located in California. Third, the costs of discovery and litigation in both venues

3

is substantially the same. Finally, defendant Van Wormer concedes that both personal jurisdiction

4

and venue are appropriate in the Southern District of California where he resides and where all the

5

relevant FAA and loan documents were signed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Accordingly, the court shall

6

grant Van Wormer’s motion and transfer this action.

7
8

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal

9

jurisdiction, or in the alternative, to transfer venue (Doc. #12) is GRANTED in accordance with

10

this order. The clerk of court shall TRANSFER this action, 2:12-cv-0020-LRH-VCF, to the United

11

States District Court for the Southern District of California.

12
13

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for entry of clerk’s default (Doc. #9);
motion for sanctions (Doc. #15); and motion to show cause (Doc. #20) are DENIED.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

DATED this 27th day of July, 2012.

16
17

__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

3