Athome Care, Inc. v. The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 7 Motion to Change Venue. 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 (cjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

ATHOME CARE, INC., an Idaho
corporation,

Case No. 1:12-cv-053-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.
THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN
GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY, a
North Dakota corporation,
Defendant.

INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it Defendant’s Motion for Change of Venue (Dkt. 7)
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404. The motions are fully briefed and at issue. For the reasons
expressed below, the Court will DENY the Motion for Change of Venue.
BACKGROUND
AtHome Care (“AtHome”) is an Idaho corporation providing private duty home
care. Compl. ¶ 1, Dkt. 1-3. The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society (“Good
Samaritan”) is a North Dakota corporation headquarted in South Dakota. Id. at ¶ 2.
Good Samaritan provides health services and homes for qualifying individuals in

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

approximately 240 locations across the United States, including four facilities in Idaho.
Id.
In June 2009, the parties entered into a written agreement to create a private duty
home care pilot project. The pilot project allowed Good Samaritan to use AtHome’s
propriety information for providing private duty home care at the pilot location. Id. at ¶¶
7-8. While the agreement stated that Good Samaritan was only allowed to use the
proprietary information at the pilot location, AtHome believes Good Samaritan is using
the proprietary materials at other locations in violation of the agreement. Id. at ¶¶ 12-13.
In January 2012, AtHome filed this action in Idaho state court alleging multiple causes of
action. Good Samaritan timely removed the case to federal court, invoking diversity
jurisdiction. Good Samaritan now moves to transfer venue to federal district court in
South Dakota under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
ANALYSIS
“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district
court may transfer any civil matter to any other district or division where it might have
been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). On a motion to transfer venue, the district court
may consider:
(1) the location where the relevant agreements were negotiated
and executed, (2) the state that is most familiar with the
governing law, (3) the plaintiff’s choice of forum; (4) the
respective parties’ contacts with the forum, (5) the contacts
relating to the plaintiff’s cause of action in the chosen forum,
(6) the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums,
(7) the availability of compulsory process to compel attendance
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

of unwilling non-party witnesses, and (8) the ease of access to
sources of proof.
Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-499 (9th Cir. 2000). Whether
transfer of venue is appropriate is a decision committed to the discretion of the district
court to be determined on a “case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.”
Id. (citing Stewart Org. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988)). The defendant bears a
strong burden of demonstrating inconvenience to justify transferring venue from
plaintiff’s chosen forum. Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834,
843 (9th Cir. 1986).
Here, the first factor is neutral. Although AtHome states that they drafted the
contract governing the pilot project in South Dakota, the agreement was apparently
executed after a series of back and forth contract negotiations between Good Samaritan’s
headquarters in South Dakota and Plaintiff’s headquarters in Idaho. Def.’s Br. at 10, Dkt.
7-1; Pl.’s Resp. at 12, Dkt. 13.
As to the second factor, AtHome concedes that South Dakota law applies to the
breach of contract claim because the agreement contained a choice of law provision
selecting South Dakota. See Compl. at 25, Dkt. 1-3. Presumably a South Dakota court
would be more familiar with its state’s law than an Idaho court. AtHome asserts,
however, that Idaho law will apply to its claims that are not based in contract, specifically
the claim asserting a violation of the Idaho Trade Secret Act. Id. at ¶¶ 21-27.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

Accordingly, the Court finds that the second factor weighs only slightly in Good
Samaritan’s favor.
The third factor, however, weighs in Plaintiff’s favor. AtHome presumably chose
to file suit in Idaho because AtHome is located in Idaho, and there is a strong
presumption in favor of the plaintiff’s choice of forum. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454
U.S. 235, 255 (1981); see also Thayer/Particof Educ. Funding, L.L.C v. Pryor Res., Inc.,
196 F.Supp. 2d 21, 31 (D.D.C. 2001) (plaintiff’s choice of forum is given substantial
deference in deciding motion to transfer where the controversy has meaningful ties to the
forum and plaintiff is a resident of that forum). “It is not enough, without more, to
merely shift the inconvenience from one party to another.” Galli v. Travelhost, Inc., 603
F.Supp. 1260, 1262 (D.Nev. 1985) (court denied motion to transfer venue where
defendant merely sought to transfer the burden of litigating in remote district to plaintiff).
As previously stated, AtHome is an Idaho corporation primarily doing business in Idaho
whereas Good Samaritan is a national corporation doing business in 240 locations, with
four locations in Idaho. Further, AtHome is unaware of the exact locations of Good
Samaritan’s alleged misuse of propriety information at this early stage of the litigation, so
they could not have filed in these unknown districts. Finally, Good Samaritan’s
argument regarding the inconvenience of defending a suit in Idaho merely shifts the
burden to AtHome to maintain a suit in South Dakota. See Def.’s Br. at 10-17, Dkt. 7-1;
Def.’s Reply at 8-10, Dkt. 16. Accordingly, the third factor weighs heavily in favor of
AtHome.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

AtHome’s contacts, including those pertaining to Plaintiff’s cause of action, are
mostly in Idaho because AtHome is an Idaho-based company. While Good Samaritan’s
contacts, including those pertaining to the cause of action, are mostly in South Dakota, it
is notable that Good Samaritan has four facilities, and presumably significant contacts, in
Idaho. See Compl. ¶¶ 1-3, Dkt. 1-3. Thus, the fourth and fifth factors weigh slightly in
favor of AtHome.
Finally, Good Samaritan fails to make a persuasive argument regarding the
disparate cost of litigation in Idaho over South Dakota, or the availability of compulsory
process, except to state in conclusory fashion that they support transferring venue. See
Def.’s Br. at 15-17, Dkt. 7-1. As previously noted, because both parties’ witnesses are
located in Idaho and South Dakota, transferring the case to South Dakota would merely
shift the burden of litigation from Good Samaritan to AtHome. See, e.g., Dealtime.com,
Ltd. v. McNulty, 123 F.Supp. 2d 750, 757 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (witness unavailability would
“not tip the balance in favor of a transfer in light of the option of videotaping testimony
of witnesses unwilling to travel”). Similarly, courts have noted that the “ease of access to
documents does not weigh heavily in the transfer analysis, given that advances in
technology have made it easy for documents to be transferred to different locations.”
Metz v. U.S. Life Ins. Co., 674 F.Supp. 2d 1141, 1149 (C.D.Cal. 2009). Accordingly, the
Court is also unconvinced that the location of evidence in South Dakota, or otherwise
outside of Idaho, so restrains access to sources of proof as to justify a change of venue.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5

On consideration of the above factors, as well as the convenience and fairness to
the parties, the Court finds that transfer of venue from AtHome’s chosen forum is not
warranted.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Defendant’s Motion for Change of Venue (Dkt. 7) is DENIED.

DATED: April 25, 2012

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 6