Neff v. Towbin Dodge, LLC
2:20-cv-02128
| D. Nev. | Nov 19, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Justin Neff, a resident of the Eastern District of California, alleges he received three autodialed calls and one text after Defendants obtained his contact from Cars.com. The claims are asserted under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
- Defendant Towbin Dodge LLC is a Dodge dealership located in Henderson, Nevada. Defendant CDK Global, LLC provided marketing services to Towbin.
- Plaintiff filed a putative class action in the Eastern District of California; Defendants moved to dismiss for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and alternatively to transfer the case to the District of Nevada under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
- The Court evaluated whether a "substantial part of the events" occurred in the Eastern District (venue) and whether transfer would be warranted for convenience and fairness.
- The Court concluded Plaintiff sufficiently alleged he received the communications in the Eastern District, so venue was proper there under § 1391(b)(2).
- Despite finding venue proper, the Court exercised its § 1404(a) discretion and transferred the case to the District of Nevada based on witness convenience, documentary location, and Nevada’s stronger contacts to the dispute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) | Neff: venue is proper because he resides in and received the calls in the Eastern District | Towbin/CDK: venue is improper because the relevant actions (sending the calls) occurred in Nevada, not California | Court: Venue is proper in the Eastern District because receipt of the communications (the alleged injury) occurred there and may be a "substantial part" of the events |
| Transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) | Neff: Eastern District is his home forum; transfer would be less convenient for him | Towbin/CDK: Nevada is more convenient—most witnesses, documents, and operational contacts are in Nevada; Nevada court can compel local witnesses | Court: Granted transfer to the District of Nevada—convenience of witnesses, location of documents, and Nevada’s greater contacts outweigh Plaintiff’s forum choice (reduced weight because this is a putative class action) |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Schneider National, Inc., 362 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2004) (court must draw reasonable inferences for the nonmoving party on a venue challenge)
- Park v. Dole Fresh Vegetables Inc., 964 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (two-step § 1404(a) transfer analysis; consider convenience and fairness factors)
- Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2000) (enumeration of § 1404(a) transfer factors)
- Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730 (9th Cir. 1987) (plaintiff's forum choice is normally afforded great weight; reduced for representative/strategic forum choices)
- Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (U.S. 1988) (district court has discretion to transfer for convenience and in interest of justice)