Paxman v. Li et al

Filing 30

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 14 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; and granting in part 15 Motion to Transfer Venue. This case is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Western District of Oklahoma. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 4/26/2018. (eat)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
JACOB LANCE PAXMAN,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 2:17-cv-01290

JASON LI, QUEEN STAR TRUCKING,
INC., and DOES 1 to 50,

District Judge Dale A. Kimball

Defendants.

This matter is before the court on Defendants Jason Li and Queen Star Trucking’s
(collectively “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. After the
Defendants filed the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the Plaintiff Jacob Lance
Paxman filed a motion to transfer venue. On April 25, 2018, the court held a hearing on the
motions. At the hearing, the Plaintiff was represented by Kevin D. Swenson and the Defendants
were represented by Jeremy S. Stuart. The court took the motions under advisement. Based on
the briefing filed by the parties and the law and facts relevant to the pending motion, the court
issues the following Memorandum Decision and Order transferring the case to the Western
District of Oklahoma.
BACKGROUND
On February 16, 2016, Plaintiff Jacob Paxman was a passenger in a car driving on
Interstate 40 in McLoud, Oklahoma. Defendant Jason Li was driving one of Defendant Queen
Star Trucking’s semi-trucks when it collided with the car in which Paxman was a passenger. As
a result, Paxman allegedly suffered extensive personal injuries and is now seeking general and
specific damages. Paxman is a Utah resident. Li is a resident of Los Angeles, California. Queen
1

Star Trucking is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Rancho
Cucamonga, California.
The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction arguing that
that they have no contacts with the state of Utah. In response, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to
Change Venue to California, where the Defendants are domiciled. The Defendants opposed the
Motion to Change Venue to California and argued that the venue should be transferred to the
Western District of Oklahoma, where the accident occurred.
MOTION TO DISMISS
At the hearing, the Plaintiff conceded that general jurisdiction does not exist over the
Defendants because the Defendants are not considered “at home” in Utah. The Defendants are a
resident of California or incorporated in California and there is no evidence that they conduct
business in Utah.
Similarly, there is no evidence to establish specific jurisdiction in Utah. “Where a forum
seeks to assert specific jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant who has not consented to suit
there, [the] fair warning requirement is satisfied if the defendant has purposefully directed his
activities at residents of the forum, and the litigation results from alleged injuries that arise out of
or relate to those activities.” Burger King Corp., v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472-73 (1985). In
this case, the accident occurred in McCloud, Oklahoma and Utah has no connection to this case
other than the Plaintiff now resides in Utah. Specific jurisdiction therefore also does not exist
over the Defendants in Utah. Accordingly, the Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction is GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 14).

2

MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
Shortly after the Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the Plaintiff filed a motion to
transfer venue to California. The Defendants opposed the motion and argued that the case should
instead be either dismissed or transferred to the Western District of Oklahoma. 28 U.S.C. §
1406(a) allows “[t]he district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong
division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any
district or division in which it could have been brought.”
The purpose of 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) is to avoid dismissal merely because of “an
erroneous guess with regard to the existence of some elusive fact of the kind upon which venue
provisions often turn.” Goldlawr, Inc., v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463, 465 (1962). A typical example
of the problem to be avoided is where statute of limitations would bar a claim because of a
mistake about proper venue. Id. at 466. “In civil cases, the question of whether a litigant has
brought an action in the proper court is a question of law, while the question of whether to
dismiss or transfer an action filed in an improper venue is within the district court’s sound
discretion and reviewed for abuse of discretion only.” Ballesteros v. Ashcroft, 452 F.3d 1153
(10th Cir. 2006).
Here, justice requires the case to be transferred instead of dismissed because the Plaintiff
may be barred from refiling his case because of the statute of limitations. The court will therefore
exercise its discretion to transfer instead of dismiss this case. Although the Plaintiff seeks to have
this case transferred to California, the court agrees with the Defendants that Oklahoma is a more
convenient forum. The accident occurred in Oklahoma, and most of the witnesses to the accident
are in Oklahoma. The Plaintiff has failed to show how California would be a more convenient
forum. Although a Plaintiff generally has the right to choose where to file a case, the Plaintiff has

3

not provided any support that he should be given deference for where to transfer the case after it
has been filed. Accordingly, the court finds that the Western District of Oklahoma is the more
convenient forum.
CONCLUSION
Based on the above reasoning, the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 14) is
GRANTED and the Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer Venue (Dkt. No. 15) is GRANTED in part
and is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Western District of Oklahoma.
Dated this 26th day of April, 2018.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
DALE A. KIMBALL,
United States District Judge

4