Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. CashCall, Inc. et al

Filing 62

Judge George A. OToole, Jr: OPINION AND ORDER entered granting 31 Motion to Transfer Case to the extent that the action is transferred to the Central District of California pursuant to sec. 1404(a) (Lyness, Paul)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-13167-GAO
CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU,
Plaintiff,
v.
CASHCALL, INC., WS FUNDING, LLC,
DELBERT SERVICES CORPORATION, and J. PAUL REDDAM,
Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
September 23, 2015
O’TOOLE, D.J.
The plaintiff, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, alleges that the entity defendants,
CashCall Inc., WS Funding, LLC, Delbert Services Corp., and the individual defendant, J. Paul
Reddam, violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010. The defendants have moved to
transfer the case to the Central District of California or, alternatively, to dismiss the claims against
Reddam for lack of personal jurisdiction.
I find that the interests of justice support the transfer of this case to the Central District of
California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
The Central District of California is a substantially more convenient forum for this case
than this district. It is plainly an appropriate venue for this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)
(authorizing venue in “a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are
residents of the State in which the district is located”). The allegedly illegal activity at the heart of
this case was apparently managed from within the Central District of California, where the
individual defendant resides and the entity defendants perform most of their business. Reddam and

the majority of the employees of the entity defendants, likely the most important witnesses for the
issues of this case, live and work in California. For example, CashCall’s senior management lives
and works in the Central District of California, and the majority of CashCall’s corporate records
and documents are located in that district.
In contrast, there is no strong (if any) reason why Massachusetts would be a more
appropriate forum. Massachusetts is one of sixteen States whose laws and public interests are
implicated by the plaintiff’s complaint, and its interests seem relatively minor in comparison to
other involved States.
Moreover, transferring this case to California avoids a potentially serious waste of judicial
resources by putting aside the contested question whether Reddam is subject to personal
jurisdiction in this forum. See Leroy v. Great W. United Corp., 443 U.S. 173, 180-81 (1979)
(avoiding a jurisdictional question in favor of a venue decision). Transferring this case to the
Central District of California effectively moots the personal jurisdiction objection.
Accordingly, the defendants’ Renewed Motion to Transfer Venue to the Central District of
California or, Alternatively, to Dismiss All Claims Against J. Paul Reddam for Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction (dkt. no. 31) is GRANTED to the extent that the action is TRANSFERRED to the
Central District of California pursuant to § 1404(a).
It is SO ORDERED.
/s/ George A. O’Toole, Jr.
United States District Judge

2