Sund v. Cottonwood Heights Police Dept

Filing 5

ORDER Transferring Venue. The Court hereby FINDS and ORDERS that this matter ishereby TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the District of Utah for all further proceedings. Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (TH) (cc: Plaintiff via first class mail)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

MATTHEW SUND,
Plaintiff,

Case No. C18-595RSM
ORDER TRANSFERRING VENUE

v.
COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS POLICE DEPT.,
Defendant.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte on a review of Plaintiff Matthew Sund’s
Application to proceed in forma pauperis and attached Proposed Complaint. See Dkt. #1-1.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404, this Court has discretion to transfer this case in the interests of
convenience and justice to another district in which venue would be proper. See Jones v. GNC
Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000). Specifically, Section 1404(a) states:
For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a
district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division
where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all
parties have consented.

25

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The purpose of this statute is to “prevent the waste of time, energy, and

26

money and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and

27

expense.” Pedigo Prods., Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc., No. 3:12-CV-05502-BHS,

28

ORDER TRANSFERRING VENUE - 1

1
2

2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12690, 2013 WL 364814, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 30, 2013) (quoting
Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616, 84 S. Ct. 805, 11 L. Ed. 2d 945 (1964)).

3

In the Ninth Circuit, district courts typically apply a nine-factor balancing test to

4

determine whether to transfer a case under § 1404(a), examining: “(1) the location where the

5
6
7

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

8

forum, (5) the contacts relating to the plaintiff’s cause of action in the chosen forum, (6) the

9

differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums, (7) the availability of compulsory

10
11
12
13

process to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses, [] (8) the ease of access to
sources of proof, and (9) the public policy considerations of the forum state.” Jones, 211 F.3d
at 498-99.

14

Mr. Sund resides in Utah and brings this suit against a police department located in

15

Utah. It is unclear why he filed suit in the Western District of Washington. All alleged events

16

took place in Utah. See Dkt. #1-1. Based on the record before it, the Court is convinced that

17
18
19

this case cannot proceed in this district, can only proceed in Utah, and that it would be most
convenient to all parties involved and any potential witnesses for the case to proceed there.

20

Having reviewed the relevant pleadings, the declarations and exhibits attached thereto,

21

and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby FINDS and ORDERS that this matter is

22
23
24

hereby TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the District of Utah for all
//

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

ORDER TRANSFERRING VENUE - 2

1
2

further proceedings.
DATED this 9th day of May 2018.

3

A

4

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER TRANSFERRING VENUE - 3