Crittendon et al v. Muldrow

Filing 96

ORDER GRANTING #84 MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE. Signed by Chief Judge Richard Seeborg on January 6, 2025. (rslc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2025)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) [Transferred from California Northern on 1/6/2025.]

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
AJEENAH CRITTENDON, et al.,

10

Case No. 22-cv-09153-RS

Plaintiffs,
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

v.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
TRANSFER VENUE

12
ANGELICA MULDROW,

13

Defendant.
14
15

I. INTRODUCTION

16

Pro se Defendant Angelica Muldrow moves to transfer venue in this matter, which has

17

been partially reopened after the Ninth Circuit’s mandate, to the Northern District of Georgia.

18

Muldrow argues the availability of witnesses to testify, Muldrow’s own financial limitations, and

19

the judicial efficiency of litigating in a forum where Muldrow will be represented by counsel all

20

support transfer. Plaintiff Ajeenah Crittendon offers no substantive opposition to the transfer. This

21

motion is suitable for disposition without oral argument. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). For the foregoing

22

reasons, Muldrow’s Motion to Transfer is granted.1

23

II. BACKGROUND

24

Plaintiffs Ajeenah Crittendon and EZ E-File Tax Preparers, Inc. (“EZ”), brought this suit

25
26
27
28

1

Muldrow’s additional motions seeking a mental health evaluation of Crittendon under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 35(a) and a protective order against Crittendon are denied without
comment on their merits. Muldrow can bring these motions again once the case has been
transferred to the Northern District of Georgia.

1

against Defendant Angelica Muldrow, relying on the Court’s diversity jurisdiction. Crittendon is

2

Muldrow’s aunt and the CEO of EZ. The proceedings in front of this court are summarized in

3

greater detail in previous orders. See Dkt. No. 75. Briefly, Crittendon’s claims were barred by res

4

judicata on account of a prior lawsuit filed by Muldrow in the Northern District of Georgia.

5

Therefore, Crittendon’s complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

In September 2023, Crittendon appealed the order dismissing her Second Amended

7

Complaint. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of all claims, except as to Muldrow’s acts

8

that occurred after the Georgia court issued its judgment. The Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal

9

of Crittendon’s claims to the extent they are premised on any of Muldrow’s actions after March

10

2022. At issue now are Crittendon’s claims, as limited. Muldrow moves, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

11

1404(a), to transfer of this matter to the Northern District of Georgia.

12

III. LEGAL STANDARD

13

When determining whether a transfer is proper, a court must employ a two-step analysis. A

14

court must first consider the threshold question of whether the case could have been brought in the

15

forum to which the moving party seeks to transfer the case. See Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335,

16

344, (1960); see also Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 409, 414 (9th Cir. 1985) (“In

17

determining whether an action might have been brought in a district, the court looks to whether the

18

action initially could have been commenced in that district.”) (internal quotation marks and

19

citations omitted). Once the party seeking transfer has made this showing, district courts have

20

discretion to consider motions to change venue based on an “individualized, case-by-case

21

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

22

(1988) (quoting Van Dusen, 376 U.S. at 622, 84 S.Ct. 805).

23

“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may

24

transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to

25

any district or division to which all parties have consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Pursuant to that

26

section, a court should consider: (1) the convenience of the parties, (2) the convenience of the

27

witnesses, and (3) the interest of justice. Id. As the Ninth Circuit explained in Jones v. GNC
ORDER ON VENUE TRANSFER
CASE NO. 22-cv-09153-RS

28
2

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2000), additional factors that a court may consider

2

include: (1) where the relevant agreements were negotiated and executed, (2) which state is most

3

familiar with governing law, (3) the plaintiff’s choice of forum, (4) the parties’ contacts with each

4

forum, (5) the parties’ contacts with each forum that are related to the cause of action, (6) the

5

relative costs of litigating in each forum, (7) the availability of compulsory process in each forum,

6

and (8) access to evidence in each forum. Id. at 498–99.

7

Consistent with the above, courts in this district have articulated additional factors such as

8

feasibility of consolidation with other claims, local interest in the controversy, and relative court

9

congestion. See Vu v. Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc., 602 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1156 (N.D. Cal.

10

2009). “No single factor is dispositive, and a district court has broad discretion to adjudicate

11

motions for transfer on a case-by-case basis.” Park v. Dole Fresh Vegetables, Inc., 964 F. Supp.

12

2d 1088, 1093 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (citations omitted); see also Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n

13

v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979) (“Weighing of the factors for and against transfer

14

involves subtle considerations and is best left to the discretion of the trial judge.”).

15

IV. DISCUSSION

16

As a threshold matter, Crittendon could have brought this case in the Northern District of

17

Georgia. As previously discussed, the bulk of Crittendon’s claims could have or were brought as

18

compulsory counterclaims in Muldrow’s original case brought in Georgia. See Dkt. No. 75. The

19

Northern District of Georgia has personal jurisdiction over Muldrow, a Georgia resident.

20

Therefore, the main concern is the convenience and fairness of a transfer.

21

In opposing transfer, Crittendon erroneously and solely relies on the previous

22

determination that venue was proper in this district. As Muldrow correctly states, the analysis of

23

proper venue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) is distinct from the analysis of

24

transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The latter analysis assumes that the potential transferor court

25

is a proper, but perhaps worse, venue. Crittendon, eliding these two distinct challenges to venue,

26

argues only that Muldrow’s current motion is somehow mooted by the previous denial of her

27

12(b)(3) motion. Therefore, Crittendon offers no rebuttal to Muldrow’s arguments in support of a
ORDER ON VENUE TRANSFER
CASE NO. 22-cv-09153-RS

28
3

1
2

transfer.
Despite Crittendon’s failure substantively to oppose the transfer, there are factors weighing

3

against granting Muldrow’s motion. First, Crittendon’s choice of venue is entitled to some

4

deference. Second, Crittendon is domiciled in this district and has secured representation here but

5

may not be able to do so in Georgia. Finally, Crittendon’s brings claims under California law, in

6

which a Georgia court may be less well-versed. However, none of these factors are dispositive and

7

therefore must be weighed against Muldrow’s arguments.

8
9
10
11

Motions to transfer “for convenience” rarely present as compelling of circumstances as
they did in an earlier time. The ease and speed of travel, electronic communications, and the
increasing use of virtual court appearances mean that it will not usually present a significant
hardship to litigate in one forum as opposed to another. That, however, is a double-edged sword,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

because even though it makes it more challenging for the party seeking transfer to show it is
12
warranted, it is also more difficult for the opposing party to show a transfer would cause it undue
13
burden or prejudice.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

In many instances, therefore, the deference due to the plaintiff’s choice of forum—which
has always been an important consideration—will be dispositive. While substantial consideration
is generally given to a plaintiff's choice of forum, the degree of deference is substantially
diminished in several circumstances, including where the conduct giving rise to the claims
occurred in a different forum. See, e.g., Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir.1987) (“If the
operative facts have not occurred within the forum and the forum has no interest in the parties or
subject matter, [plaintiff's] choice is entitled to only minimal consideration.”).
Costs of litigation also weigh heavily in the analysis. “Generally, litigation costs are

22
reduced when venue is located near the most witnesses expected to testify, and the convenience of
23
24
25
26

witnesses is often the most important factor in resolving a motion to transfer.” Park v. Dole Fresh
Vegetables, Inc., 964 F. Supp. 2d 1088, 1095 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (citations and quotations omitted).
Muldrow argues witness convenience, her own financial limitations, and judicial efficiency
all support transfer of this matter. She avers witnesses in this case, namely her father Joe Muldrow

27
ORDER ON VENUE TRANSFER
CASE NO. 22-cv-09153-RS

28
4

1

and Belinda Taylor, Muldrow’s aunt and Crittendon’s twin sister, would be able to testify in

2

Georgia more easily than this district. Joe Muldrow and Belinda Taylor have submitted

3

declarations in support of this point. Muldrow also highlights the financial difficulty for her to

4

travel to San Francisco, as a Georgia resident who is the sole caretaker for her mother and two

5

children.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

Finally, Muldrow avers she cannot afford to retain counsel in this district and submits the

7

declaration of an attorney, Frank G. Podesta, who represented her previously. Mr. Podesta is

8

licensed in Georgia, but not in California, and declares he will represent Muldrow if the matter is

9

transferred. Muldrow therefore argues litigating in Georgia would be in the interest of justice,

10

given the value of representation. She also highlights the judicial efficiency of transfer, where the

11

Northern District of Georgia previously heard similar claims about Crittendon’s alleged filing of

12

fraudulent tax forms in order to harass Muldrow. This averred fraud and harassment is referenced

13

in Muldrow’s statements, which form the basis of Crittendon’s defamation and libel claims.

14

Therefore, the Georgia court, Muldrow avers, is more familiar with the relevant conduct and

15

evidence in this matter. Given the balance of the factors regarding convenience and fairness,

16

Muldrow’s Motion to Transfer is granted.

17

V. CONCLUSION

18

Defendant Angelica Muldrow’s Motion to Transfer Venue, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a),

19

is hereby granted. This matter shall be transferred to the United States Court for the Northern

20

District of Georgia.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24
25
26

Dated: January 6, 2025
______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
Chief United States District Judge

27
ORDER ON VENUE TRANSFER
CASE NO. 22-cv-09153-RS

28
5