Charles Kinney v. Tyson Takeuchi
2:16-cv-06172
| C.D. Cal. | Aug 15, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Charles Kinney sued defendants Tyson Takeuchi (bankruptcy attorney) and Michele Clark alleging RICO and FDCPA violations arising from a 2005 real‑estate dispute (the Fernwood property) and subsequent liens and bankruptcy filings.
- Clark obtained judgments/liens in Los Angeles County and filed Chapter 7 in 2010; many operative events and witnesses are in the Central District of California.
- Defendants moved to transfer venue to the Central District under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); plaintiff did not dispute that venue would be proper there.
- The parties had previously litigated related claims in other districts; the court noted Kinney’s history of similar suits and prior transfers.
- The magistrate judge decided the motion without oral argument, granted judicial notice of public‑record litigation documents (but not the facts asserted in them), and granted the transfer to the Central District.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether transfer to the Central District is appropriate under § 1404(a) | Kinney relied on his choice of forum (Northern District of California). | Transfer is warranted because defendants, witnesses, evidence, and the property are in the Central District; plaintiff also has contacts there. | Transfer granted: Central District is a proper forum; convenience and interests of justice favor transfer; plaintiff’s forum choice given minimal weight. |
| Whether court may take judicial notice of public‑record litigation documents | Implicitly opposed taking notice of facts in those documents. | Requested judicial notice of existence of other litigation; did not seek notice of asserted facts. | Court took judicial notice of existence of other litigation records but not the truth of factual statements within them. |
Key Cases Cited
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (forum non conveniens and factors for transfer)
- Norwood v. Kirkpatrick, 349 U.S. 29 (§ 1404(a) as revision, lesser showing than forum non conveniens)
- Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495 (Ninth Circuit § 1404(a) factor framework)
- Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730 (weight given to plaintiff’s choice of forum)
- Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (district court discretion in transfer analysis)
- Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834 (local interest and administrative considerations)
- Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270 (burden on moving party for transfer)
- Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Weigel, 426 F.2d 1356 (district court discretion in transfer motions)
- E & J Gallo Winery v. F. & P. S.p.A., 899 F. Supp. 465 (transfer standards and analysis)