Avery v. Flying J Inc. et al
Filing
16
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 6 Motion to Change Venue; denying as moot 10 Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by dks)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
NORMA R. AVERY,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:11-cv-00324-BLW
v.
FLYING J INC., a corporation, and
PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS, LLC,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
Defendants.
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Change Venue (Dkt. 6). Also before
the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply (Dkt. 10). The Motions are
fully briefed and at issue. The Court has determined that oral argument would not
significantly assist the decisional process. Being familiar with the record and having
considered the parties’ briefing, the Court will deny Defendant’s Motion (Dkt. 6), and
deny as moot Plaintiff’s Motion (Dkt. 10), as more fully expressed below.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Norma R. Avery filed an action in Idaho state court for injuries sustained
when she stepped into a sinkhole in front of a Flying J facility in Winnemucca, Nevada in
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1
June 2011. Defendants Flying J and Pilot Travel Centers, LLC removed the case to this
Court in July 2011. Defendants now move to change venue to federal district court in
Nevada.
ANALYSIS
Whether to allow transfer of venue is at the court’s discretion. Ventress v. Japan
Airlines, 486 F.3d 1111, 1118 (9th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). Where a civil action is
before the federal district court under diversity jurisdiction, venue is appropriate in a
judicial district
(1) . . . where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same
State, (2) . . . [where] a substantial part of the events or omissions giving
rise to the claim occurred . . . or (3) . . . [where] any defendant is subject to
personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, if there is no
district in which the action may otherwise be brought.
28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). Also, “[f]or purposes of venue . . . a defendant that is a corporation
shall be deemed to reside in any judicial district in which it is subject to personal
jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). “Courts have
analogized partnerships and associations to corporations in making venue
determinations.” Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 842 (9th
Cir. 1986). As a limited liability company, Defendant Pilot Travel Centers is a corporate
defendant as contemplated in 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c).
Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this District if they have “certain
minimum contacts with [Idaho] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2
Racisme Et L’Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199, 1205 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (other
citations omitted). A court’s jurisdiction is “specific” where the action against defendant
relates to defendant’s contacts with the forum, and defendant “purposefully avails itself
of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits
and protections of its laws.” Tuazon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 433 F.3d 1163, 1169
(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985)).
The court’s exercise of specific jurisdiction must be reasonable. See Yahoo! Inc., 433
F.3d at 1205-06.
Defendant Flying J, which has consolidated business with Defendant Pilot Travel
Centers, operates multiple facilities in Idaho. Plaintiff does not dispute this. The Court
therefore finds venue appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(a)(1) and (c).
Although the specific incident giving rise to this action occurred in Winnemucca,
Nevada, that location is not substantially farther from Boise, Idaho – at 257 miles away,
than it is from Reno, Nevada – at 166 miles away. Thus in terms of practicality, the
Court finds it reasonable to exercise jurisdiction and maintain venue for this case in
Idaho.
In light of the above, Defendants’ Motion to Change Venue will be denied. The
Court not having considered or relied upon Plaintiff’s Sur-Reply, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Leave to File Sur-Reply will be denied as moot.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1.
Defendants’ Motion to Change Venue (Dkt. 6) is DENIED.
2.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply (Dkt. 10) is DENIED as MOOT.
DATED: November 3, 2011
_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4
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?