Vigil v. General Nutrition Corporation

Filing 22

ORDER granting 18 MOTION to Transfer Case. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 1/13/15. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2015) [Transferred from California Northern on 1/15/2015.]

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

RYAN VIGIL,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Plaintiff,

No. C 14-04866 JSW

v.
GENERAL NUTRITION CORPORATION,

13

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
TRANSFER

Defendant.
/

14
15

Now before the Court for consideration is Defendant General Nutrition Corporation’s

16

(“GNC”) Motion to Transfer Case. The Court has considered the parties’ papers, relevant legal

17

authority, and the record in this case, and it finds the motion suitable for disposition without

18

oral argument. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). The Court therefore VACATES the hearing scheduled

19

for January 23, 2015. For the following reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s

20

Motion.

21

BACKGROUND

22

GNC is a retailer of health and wellness products. GNC is organized, and has its

23

principal place of business in Pennsylvania. Plaintiff is an individual who resides in San Diego

24

County, California. Plaintiff brings this putative class action, alleging that he purchased a GNC

25

product – Staminol – in reliance on GNC’s advertising that Staminol would enhance his sexual

26

experience and enjoyment. Plaintiff was exposed to GNC’s advertising for Staminol, and

27

purchased the product in La Jolla, California.

28

GNC now moves to transfer venue to the Southern District of California. On January 7,
2015, Plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition to GNC’s Motion.

1
2

ANALYSIS
A.

3

Legal Standard.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court may transfer a civil action to any district

4

where the case could have been filed originally, for the convenience of the parties and

5

witnesses, and in the interest of justice. The burden is on the moving party to demonstrate that

6

the action should be transferred. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Savage, 611 F.2d

7

270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979).

8

District courts use a two-step analysis to determine whether transfer is proper. Step one

9

considers the threshold question of whether the action might have been brought in the district to
which transfer is sought. Id. If venue is proper in the transferee district, the district court has

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

discretion “to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an individualized, case-by-case

12

consideration of convenience and fairness.” Steward Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29

13

(1988). The court considers relevant factors, such as the plaintiff’s choice of forum, the local

14

interest in the issue, the relative ease of access to evidence, the availability of compulsory

15

process for unwilling witnesses and the cost involved in securing willing witnesses, the

16

familiarity of each forum with applicable law, and the relative court congestion in each forum.

17

Decker Coal. Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co, 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Gulf

18

Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508-09 (1947)).

19

B.

Transfer of Venue is Appropriate.

20

1.

21

Venue is proper in any judicial district in which a substantial part of the events giving

Venue is Proper in the Southern District of California.

22

rise to the claim occurred. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Plaintiff resides within the Southern

23

District of California, and he alleges that he was exposed to GNC’s advertising, and purchased

24

GNC’s product within the Southern District. Additionally, Plaintiff does not dispute that venue

25

is proper in the Southern District. Accordingly, the Court finds that GNC has met its burden

26

under the first prong.

27

//

28

//
2

1
2
3

2.

Convenience Factors.
a.

Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum.

Generally, a court should give deference to a plaintiff’s choice of forum unless a

4

defendant can show that other factors of convenience clearly favor a different forum. See

5

Decker Coal Co., 805 F.2d at 843. Here, Plaintiff’s choice of forum is afforded less deference

6

because he does not reside within his chosen district. See, e.g., Smith v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.,

7

2011 WL 3904131, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2011). In addition, because the operative facts that

8

give rise to the current action occurred in the Southern District, Plaintiff’s choice to bring the

9

action the Northern District is only entitled to minimal consideration. See Pac. Car & Foundry
Co. v. Pence, 403 F.2d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 1968). Finally, Plaintiff has chosen not to oppose

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

GNC’s motion. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that this factor favors transfer.

12

b.

Convenience of Parties and Witnesses.

13

None of the parties reside in this district. To the extent any discovery becomes

14

necessary in this action, proceeding within the Northern District will not expedite the process,

15

given that Plaintiff resides in the Southern District, and GNC resides in Pennsylvania. The

16

convenience of the parties and witnesses favors transfer.

17
18

c.

Public Convenience Factors.

In addition to private convenience factors, the Court takes into account public

19

convenience factors, such as the local interest in the action, the familiarity of the forum with the

20

applicable law, and the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion.

21

The Northern District has no particular interest in adjudicating this case, given that the

22

relevant transactions did not occur here. Additionally, both this Court and the courts in the

23

Southern District are equally capable of applying the law which governs this case. The Court

24

finds that this factor is neutral.

25

d.

Interests of Justice.

26

The Court must also consider whether transferring this case will serve the interest of

27

justice. See Decker Coal, 805 F.2d at 843. Considerations of the interests of justice include

28

“whether efficient and expeditious administration of justice would be furthered.” Sherar v.
3

1

Harless, 561 F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir. 1977). The Court finds that the Southern District arguably

2

has a greater interest in the controversy given that Plaintiff resides there.

3
4

Accordingly, the Court finds that GNC has met its burden to demonstrate that in the
interests of justice, this action should be transferred to the Southern District.

5
6
7

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS GNC’s motion to transfer venue to the
Southern District of California. The clerk shall transfer the file forthwith.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
Dated: January 13, 2015
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4