Kuykendall v. Amazon Studios LLC DO NOT DOCKET Case transferred to (Central District of California, Los Angeles Division).
5:20-cv-00219
S.D. Tex.Mar 18, 2022Background
- Plaintiff James Kuykendall, a Texas resident and former DEA agent, sued over his portrayal in the Prime Video documentary series The Last Narc, alleging defamation (per se and per quod), intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of his right of publicity.
- The production, many interviews, and decisions about the Series were developed, filmed, and made in the Los Angeles area; Amazon Studios is headquartered in California. Three co-defendants (producers/participants) also have strong California ties.
- The Court previously found it lacked personal jurisdiction over the three producer defendants and ordered those claims transferred to the Central District of California.
- Amazon Studios moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the remaining claims to the Central District of California, Los Angeles Division; Kuykendall opposed.
- The Court held the Central District of California is a proper transferee (personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, and venue) and, after weighing public and private interest factors, granted transfer of the entire action to the Central District of California.
- The Court rejected Kuykendall’s contention that the motion sought impermissible forum-shopping based on differing circuit treatment of the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), giving that argument no weight.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the action "might have been brought" in the Central District of California (jurisdiction/venue) | Kuykendall did not contest venue in CA but maintained Texas interests; implicit challenge to transfer | Amazon: CA has personal jurisdiction over Amazon Studios (principal place of business) and venue is proper because substantial events occurred there | Transferee court could have heard the case; requirement satisfied |
| Whether public-interest factors favor transfer under § 1404(a) (court congestion, local interest, conflict-of-law/familiarity) | Transfer would risk changing applicable federal/circuit law (TCPA) and disadvantage Plaintiff | CA disposes civil cases faster; familiarity/conflicts not problematic; local interests split between CA and TX | Public-interest factors neutral overall (administrative speed favored transfer, others neutral) |
| Whether private-interest factors favor transfer (access to proof, compulsory process, witness costs, efficiency) | Majority of non-party witnesses and Plaintiff’s damages witnesses are in Texas; Plaintiff is elderly and would be inconvenienced by travel | Key production records, many liability witnesses, and co-defendants are in CA; transfer reduces duplicative litigation and costs for most witnesses | Private-interest factors favor transfer (most factors favor CA; avoiding duplicative litigation weighs strongly) |
| Whether Van Dusen/TCPA concerns bar transfer because transfer would change applicable federal/circuit law | Kuykendall: transfer sought to reach Ninth Circuit treatment of TCPA and would prejudicially change law applied | Amazon: transfer is proper and Van Dusen concerns on state-law outcome neutrality do not apply to speculative federal-circuit issues; transferee will apply transferor choice-of-law where required | Court gave Van Dusen/TCPA argument no weight; speculative change in federal-circuit treatment insufficient to deny § 1404(a) transfer |
Key Cases Cited
- Franco v. Mabe Trucking Co., Inc., 3 F.4th 788 (5th Cir. 2021) (§ 1404(a) authorizes discretionary transfer when another venue is more convenient)
- In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004) (establishes two-step § 1404(a) test and private/public factor framework)
- In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) (clarifies public and private interest factors for transfer analysis)
- In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 566 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (related litigation in transferee court is a strong consideration favoring transfer)
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (1964) (transferee court must apply state law as would have applied in transferor court; transfer should be outcome-neutral as to state law)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021) (corporation is "at home" where incorporated or principal place of business for general jurisdiction)
- Continental Grain Co. v. The FBL-585, 364 U.S. 19 (1960) (transfer prevents duplicative litigation and waste of judicial resources)