SkyRiver Technology Solutions, LLC et al v. OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.

Filing 20

Memorandum in Opposition re 16 MOTION to Transfer Case Defendant's Notice of Motion and Motion; Memorandum of Points and Authoriies in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue MOTION to Change Venue filed byInnovative Interfaces, Inc., SkyRiver Technology Solutions, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order [Proposed] Order)(Shartsis, Mary) (Filed on 9/27/2010) [Transferred from California Northern on 11/12/2010.]

SkyRiver Technology Solutions, LLC et al v. OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.

Doc. 20 Att. 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SHARTSIS FRIESE LLP ONE MARITIME PLAZA EIGHTEENTH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 9 4111

SHARTSIS FRIESE LLP ARTHUR J. SHARTSIS (Bar #51549) [e-mail] MARY JO SHARTSIS (Bar #55194) [e-mail] ROBERT E. SCHABERG (Bar #81430) [e-mail] SIMONE M. KATZ-O'NEILL (Bar #246490) [e-mail] One Maritime Plaza, Eighteenth Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiffs SKYRIVER TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, LLC and INNOVATIVE INTERFACES, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case No. C 10-03305 JSW

SKYRIVER TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, LLC, a California limited liability company, and INNOVATIVE INTERFACES, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiffs, v. OCLC ONLINE COMPUTER LIBRARY CENTER, INC., an Ohio corporation, Defendant.

Case No. C 10-03305 JSW [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Date: Time: Judge: Crtrm: October 29, 2010 9:00 a.m. Hon. Jeffrey S. White 11, 19th Floor July 28, 2010 None

Complaint Filed: Trial Date:

[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SHARTSIS FRIESE LLP ONE MARITIME PLAZA EIGHTEENTH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 9 4111

The Court has considered the motion of Defendant OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. (hereafter "Defendant" or "OCLC") requesting transfer of this case to the Southern District of Ohio under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Both plaintiffs, SkyRiver Technology

Solutions, LLC ("SkyRiver") and Innovative Interfaces, Inc. ("Innovative") (collectively "Plaintiffs"), are California companies and have their principal places of business in the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs oppose transfer. A district court has discretion to transfer an action under 28 U.S.C. section 1404(a) if it finds: (1) that the transferee court is "one where the action might have been brought," and (2) "that the convenience of parties and witnesses in the interest of justice favor transfer." Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 409, 414 (9th Cir. 1985). Plaintiffs do not dispute that this action could have been brought in the Southern District of Ohio. The first prong of the test accordingly is not at issue. The Court has considered the purpose of section 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. section 22, and Congress's intent to give antitrust plaintiffs a wide choice of forum so that a plaintiff would "not be forced to follow the defendant into the defendant's home district" but could bring suit where the "defendant had committed violations of the Act and inflicted the forbidden injuries." Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 22; Pacific Car & Foundry Co. v. Pence, 403 F.2d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 1968), quoting United States v. National City Lines, Inc., 334 U.S. 573, 588 (1948). This Congressional mandate strongly favors an antitrust plaintiff's choice of forum so long as it does not exceed "reasonable limits." Id.; Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 372 F. Supp. 2d 530, 537 (N.D. Cal. 2005) ("where venue is governed by a more permissive standard, a plaintiff's choice is entitled to greater deference as a matter of law"). To determine whether Defendant has met its burden of showing that the interests of justice require transfer, the Court has generally considered the following factors: (1) deference to the plaintiff's choice of forum; (2) the convenience of the parties and witnesses; (3) the ease of access to sources of proof; (4) the local interest in adjudicating the controversy; (5) the familiarity of each forum with the applicable law; and (6) the relative congestion in each forum, particularly the elapsed time from filing to disposition. See Decker Coal Co., 805 F.2d at 843; Invisible Stripes,
Case No. C 10-03305 JSW

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-1[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SHARTSIS FRIESE LLP ONE MARITIME PLAZA EIGHTEENTH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 9 4111

LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57956 at *8, *10. Defendant has failed to carry its heavy burden of demonstrating that any of these factors favor transfer to Ohio. The plaintiff's choice of forum is given substantial deference unless the defendant can show that other factors strongly outweigh the plaintiff's choice. Decker Coal Co., 805 F.2d at 843; Jonathan Browning, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95440 at *17-*19. Where, as here, Plaintiffs are citizens of the forum state, their choice of forum is given even greater weight. Jonathan Browning, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95440 at *18-*19 (explaining that the plaintiff's "choice of forum is favored" because plaintiff is located in San Francisco); Invisible Stripes, LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57956 at *8, *10 (giving great weight to the plaintiff's choice of forum because plaintiff is a California citizen). Many of the events giving rise to this action occurred in the Northern District and in other districts in California, and the harm allegedly suffered by Plaintiffs occurred in the Northern District. Numerous witnesses--both third-party and party--reside in the Northern District, and many others reside elsewhere in California and are subject to the subpoena power of this Court. Many other third-party witnesses whose testimony may be important to this case are located in states close to California, and others are willing to testify in California even though they do not reside here. In addition, Defendant has a substantial presence in the Northern District with two offices in California and employees or agents who have knowledge of the issues raised by Plaintiffs' claims. California has a strong interest in protecting its citizens from violation of federal and California state antitrust and unfair competition laws that exceed the interest of the Ohio courts. OCLC has not shown that any of the factors relevant to the determination of its Motion weigh in its favor. Accordingly, Defendant has failed to meet its heavy burden of showing that these factors strongly outweigh Plaintiff's choice of forum. Defendant's Motion is denied. DATED: __________, 2010 THE HONORABLE JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

5556\005\1675247.1

Case No. C 10-03305 JSW

-2[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO