Botha v. United States of America et al

Filing 18

ORDER Granting 15 Motion to Transfer Venue. This case is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 9/3/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DC)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

EDMUND C. BOTHA,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 2:14-cv-00547-RFB-PAL

Plaintiff,
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

This matter is before the Court on Defendant United States of America’s (“United

14

States”) Motion to Transfer Venue to the Central District of California. (ECF No. 15). Plaintiff

15

Edmund C. Botha’s response to the motion was due on February 20, 2015. Botha did not file a

16

response, which constitutes consent to the granting of the motion under the Local Rules for this

17

district. LR II 7-2(d). Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the United States’ motion and finds

18

that it should be granted.

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

whether to transfer a case is within the discretion of the district court and is made under “an

23

individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.” Jones v. GNC

24

Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000). In making this evaluation, courts may

25

consider several factors, including:

26
27
28

(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

1
2

costs of litigation in the two forums, (7) the availability of compulsory process to
compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses, and (8) the ease of access to
sources of proof.

3
4

Id. at 498-99.

5

As a substantial part of the events giving rise to Botha’s claim arose in the Central

6

District of California, venue is proper in that district and the case may be transferred there. 28

7

U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2), 1404(a). In addition, considering the factors listed above, the Court

8

concludes that interests of convenience and fairness weigh in favor of transfer. All of the events

9

occurred in California and witnesses to Botha’s claim will likely be located there rather than in

10

Nevada. Moreover, California substantive law applies to Botha’s claim, and medical experts on

11

the standard of care in California are more likely to be located there. Finally, transfer will likely

12

reduce the costs of litigation. These factors outweigh the consideration given to Botha’s choice

13

of forum in Nevada.

14

For these reasons,

15

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff United States of America’s Motion to Transfer Venue

16

(ECF No. 15) is GRANTED. This case is transferred to the United States District Court for the

17

Central District of California.

18
19

DATED: September 3, 2015.
_____________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-