Davis v. Washington State Department of Social and Health Services et al

Filing 67

ORDER re 64 Defendant Riverside's Reply to Response to Motion in support of its Motion to Change Venue; The Court's prior order 61 is vacated only to the extent it denied the Motion to Change Venue; The Motion to Change Venue 46 is GRANTED and the Clerk shall TRANSFER this case to the Eastern District of Washington; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton. (DN)

1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
BARBARA DAVIS,

CASE NO. C16-5783-RBL

9
Plaintiff,
10

ORDER ON MOTION TO CHANGE
VENUE

v.
11
12

[Dkt. #46]
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT
OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES,
et al.,

13
Defendants.
14
15

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon receipt of Defendant Riverside’s Reply [Dkt.

16 #64] in support of its Motion to Change Venue to the Eastern District [Dkt. #46]. In an Order
17 addressing three other pending motions in this case, the Court denied the Motion before the
18 Reply was due or filed. It determined that the plaintiff’s choice of venue was entitled to
19 deference, even though the “center of gravity” of the case was in the Eastern District. See factors
20 outlined in Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000).
21

Riverside’s Reply argues persuasively that (1) there is no evidence that Davis resides in

22 the Western District or that she had any contact with G.B. or any defendant here, and (2) to the
23 extent they are in dispute, the remaining factors overwhelming weigh in favor of transfer. It
24

ORDER ON MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE - 1

1 emphasizes that it disputes the plaintiff’s characterization of G.B.’s death as a murder, and the
2 witnesses on this core allegation all reside in the Eastern District; indeed, they demonstrate that
3 26 of 30 individual defendants reside in the Eastern District. Davis has not identified any witness
4 who resides in the Western District.
5

Riverside persuasively argues that the plaintiff’s choice of forum is not entitled to

6 deference where the operative facts did not occur there, and where the chosen forum has no
7 particular interest in the parties or the subject matter. See Pacific Car & Foundry Co. v. Pierce,
8 403 F.2d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 1968), Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987). Under
9 these circumstances, a plaintiff’s choice of forum is not entitled to so much deference that it
10 outweighs the remaining factors.
11

The Court’s prior Order [Dkt. #61] is VACATED to the extent it denied the Motion to

12 Change Venue. The remainder of that Order is unchanged.
13

The Motion to Change Venue [Dkt. #46] is GRANTED and the Clerk shall TRANSFER

14 this case to the Eastern District of Washington.
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated this 3rd day of February, 2017.

18

A

19

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

17

20
21
22
23
24

[DKT. #46] - 2