Hicks et al v. Makaha Valley Plantation Homeowners Assn. et al

Filing 27

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDING DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE (ECF No. 25 ), AS MODIFIED. Signed by JUDGE HELEN GILLMOR on 11/21/2014. ~ Plaintiffs' Motion to Transfer Venue (ECF No. 25) i s DENIED. (ecs, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on 11/25/2014 the date of this docket entry Modified on 11/24/2014 (ecs, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
CIVIL NO. 14-00254 HG-BMK

CHARLES HICKS, DENEEN HICKS & )
STACEY HICKS,
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
vs.
)
)
ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT
)
)
OWNERS OF MAKAHA VALLEY
PLANTATION and HAWAII FIRST, )
)
INC.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
FINDING DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE (ECF No.
25), AS MODIFIED
Findings and Recommendation having been filed and served on
all parties on October 20, 2014, and no objections having been
filed by any party,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, pursuant to Title
28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 74.2,
the Finding of the Magistrate Judge Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Transfer Venue (ECF No. 25) is adopted.

The District Court has

substituted its own order to clarify the reasoning behind the
denial of the motion.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE (ECF No. 25)
Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Charles Hicks, Deneen Hicks,
and Stacey Hicks Motion to Transfer Venue, filed August 28, 2014.
(ECF No. 15.)

Defendants Association of Apartment Owners of

1

Makaha Valley Plantation and Hawaii First, Inc., filed a
memorandum in opposition to the Motion on September 23, 2014.
(ECF No. 24.)

After careful consideration of the Motion, the

supporting and opposing memoranda, and the relevant legal
authority, Plaintiffs' Motion to Transfer Venue (ECF No. 25) is
DENIED for the reasons set forth below.
BACKGROUND
On June 28, 2012, while living in California, Plaintiffs
filed a complaint against Defendants alleging housing
discrimination under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et
seq, with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
("HUD") and the Hawai'i Civil Rights Commission ("HCRC").
No. 24-5, 24-6.)

(ECF

Plaintiffs alleged "[d]iscriminatory terms,

conditions, privileges, or services and facilities," and
"[f]ailure to make reasonable accommodation," stemming from:
(1) Defendants' failure to make satisfactory
repairs to the interior of Plaintiffs' condominium
unit caused by water leaks from the unit above
them, and Defendants' failure to provide Plaintiffs
with contact information for the homeowner of the
unit above them, which resulted in Plaintiffs
having to secure repairs to their unit for which
they were not responsible for and having to secure
a high-risk insurance policy for their unit;
(2) Defendants' refusal to trim the landscaping
that interfered with Plaintiffs' ability to enter
and exit their car when parked in their assigned
parking space;
(3) Defendants' differential enforcement of the
parking
rules
between
Plaintiffs
and
other
"non-Black residents";
(4) Defendants' refusal to provide Plaintiffs with
2

identification information of a homeowner whose
tenant
made
"unprovoked,
racially-derogatory
remarks and physically threatened Charles Hicks";
and
(5)
Defendants'
failure
to
make
reasonable
accommodation to Charles Hicks whose disability
makes
him
particularly
sensitive
to
noise
disturbances.
(ECF No. 24-5.)
Plaintiffs maintained that they were discriminated against
based upon their race, color, and Charles Hicks' disability.
(ECF No. 24-6.)

On February 12, 2013, Defendants filed a

response to Plaintiffs' HUD and HCRC complaint, which denied all
of Plaintiffs' allegations of discrimination and disparate
treatment, and argued that Plaintiffs filed their complaint in
retaliation for Defendants' attempt to collect past and currently
due maintenance fees, fines for prohibited conduct, and related
late fees.

(ECF No. 24-7.) On February 24, 2014, the HCRC

dismissed Plaintiffs' discrimination complaint on the basis of
"no cause."

(ECF No. 24-8.)

On May 29, 2014, Plaintiffs, appearing pro se, filed the
Complaint in this Court alleging housing discrimination on the
basis of race while they were residing at the Makaha Valley
Plantation ("MVP") condominium project in Hawaii.
24.)

(ECF No. 1,

Sometime before filing their Complaint in this Court,

Plaintiffs became residents of Lithia Springs, Georgia.
1.)

(ECF No.

In their Complaint, Plaintiffs articulate the same

allegations raised in their HCRC and HUD complaint, and allege,
inter alia, that Defendants failed to make satisfactory repairs
3

to the interior of their unit after water leaked from the unit
above them, and Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs with
contact information of other homeowners within the MVP
condominium project.

(ECF No. 1.)

Plaintiffs further allege

that Defendants' acts and omissions caused them to be "homeless
and penniless."

(ECF No. 1.)

Plaintiffs seek $500,000 in actual

damages and $2.5 million in punitive damages.

(ECF No. 1.)

On August 28, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a "Request to Transfer
Case," which this Court has construed as a Motion for Transfer of
Venue.

(See ECF No. 19.)

Plaintiffs seek to transfer this

action from this Court to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia.

(ECF No. 15.)

On September

23, 2014, Defendants filed an Opposition arguing that Plaintiffs'
case could not have been brought in Georgia and that a balance of
the relevant factors "weighs heavily in favor of Hawaii as the
forum."

(ECF No. 24.)
LEGAL STANDARD

Standard for Motion to Transfer Venue
The standard for a motion to transfer venue is set forth in
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

Section 1404(a) of Title 28 of the United

States Code provides,
For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the
interest of justice, a district court may transfer
any civil action to any other district or division
where it might have been brought or to any district
or division to which all parties have consented.
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (emphasis added).
4

“Before a court may transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404,
it must find that: (i) the action is one that might have been
brought in the transferee court and (ii) the convenience of the
parties and the interest of justice favor the transfer.”

Caltex

Plastics, Inc. v. Great Pacific Packaging, Inc., Civ. No. 14-2794
RSWL (JEMx), 2014 WL 4060144, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2014);
see Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 409, 414 (9th Cir.
1985).
As to the first inquiry under 28 U.S.C. § 1404, an action is
one that “might have been brought in the transferee court” if
venue would have been proper.

See Caltex Plastics, Inc., 2014 WL

4060144, at *2 (citing E. & J. Gallo Winery v. F. & P. S.p.A.,
899 F.Supp. 465, 466 (E.D.Cal. 1994) (citing Hoffman v. Blaski,
363 U.S. 335, 343–44 (1960)).

This means that “[a]n action may

not be transferred to a district where venue would have been
improper if it originally had been filed there.”

See Lax v.

Toyota Motor Corporation, Case No. 14-cv-01490-WHO, 2014 WL
3973482, at *1 (N.D.Cal. Aug. 14, 2014)(citing 28 U.S.C. §
1404(a) and Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 613 (1964)).

The

Court need not reach the second inquiry under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 if
the transferee court is one in which the action could not have
been brought.

DISCUSSION
I.

The Action Could Not Have Been Brought in the Northern
District of Georgia
5

Plaintiffs seek to transfer the action to the Northern
District of Georgia.

In their Motion, Plaintiffs describe a

number of reasons why it is difficult for them to litigate the
case in Hawaii.

(ECF No. 15.)

While the Court recognizes the

difficult circumstances the Plaintiffs allege, the Court is
unable to consider those reasons in deciding whether the action
can be transferred to the Northern District of Georgia.

Under

the applicable legal standard, a court cannot transfer an action
unless both prongs of the inquiry under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 are
satisfied.
Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the first prong of the inquiry
under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 – that the action “might have been
brought” in the transferee court.

This action could not have

been brought in the Northern District of Georgia because venue is
not proper there.
PRACTICE

See 17

JAMES WM.

MOORE

ET AL., MOORE’S FEDERAL

¶ 111.12[1][b], fn. 6 (“Transfer court must be one in

which action properly could have been filed originally”) (3d ed.
2014).
All of Plaintiffs’ claims arise under the Fair Housing Act,
42 U.S.C. § 3601, et seq. (See ECF No. 24-6.)

The Fair Housing

Act, Section 3613 of Chapter 42 of the United States Code, allows
an aggrieved person to bring a civil action “in an appropriate
United States district court . . . .”

42 U.S.C. § 3613(a)(1)(A).

An appropriate court, and one in which this action might have
been brought, is a court in which venue is proper.
6

Venue is proper in a judicial district in which any
defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State
in which the district is located. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). Venue
is also proper in a judicial district in which a substantial part
of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial
part of property that is the subject of the action is situated.
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).
Here, venue is not proper in the Northern District of
Georgia under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because neither Defendant is
a resident of Georgia.

Both Defendants Association of Apartment

Owners of Makaha Valley Plantation and Hawaii First, Inc. are
residents of Hawaii.

Both Defendants are Hawaii corporations.

Defendant Association of Apartment Owners of Makaha Valley
Plantation operates and manages the condominium project known as
Makaha Valley Plantation, located in Waianae, Hawaii.
24-11.)

(ECF. No.

Defendant Hawaii First, Inc. is the managing agent of

the Association of Apartment Owners of Makaha Valley Plantation
and has its principle place of business in Honolulu, Hawaii.
(ECF. No. 24-1, Declaration of Richard B. Emery.)
Venue is not proper in the Northern District of Georgia
under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because all of the events giving
rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in Hawaii.

Plaintiffs allege

that the discriminatory housing practices occurred during their
residency at the Makaha Valley Plantation condominium project.
None of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in
Georgia.
7

Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the first prong of the Section
1404(a) analysis because this case could not have been brought in
the Northern District of Georgia.

Plaintiffs do not seek to

transfer this action to a court in which it might have been
brought.

Venue is not proper in the Northern District of

Georgia.

As such, the Court need not consider the second inquiry

– convenience of the parties and interests of justice – under 28
U.S.C. § 1404.

CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs' Motion to Transfer Venue (ECF No. 25) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

Honolulu, Hawaii, November 21, 2014.

/s/ Helen Gillmor
Helen Gillmor
United States District Judge

_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Hicks, et al. v. Association of Apartment Owners of Makaha Valley
Plantation, et al., Civ. No. 14-00254 HG-BMK, ORDER ADOPTING
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDING DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER
VENUE (ECF No. 25), AS MODIFIED

8