Park v. Dole Fresh Vegetables, Inc.
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109163
| N.D. Cal. | 2013Background
- Plaintiff Park files a putative consumer class action asserting UCL and CLRA claims against Dole in this district; Dole moves to transfer to the Central District under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
- Hansen v. Dole related actions were filed in state and federal courts, with a Central District filing and a later voluntary dismissal of a related action in the Central District.
- Park previously filed and then dismissed a similar Central District action before re-filing in this district, raising first-to-file considerations.
- Dole argues the Central District is proper under the first-to-file rule and for reasons of convenience and efficiency; plaintiff opposes but acknowledges Central District viability.
- The court considers transfer based on factors: plaintiff’s venue choice, convenience of parties and witnesses, ease of access to evidence, and the interest of justice; it grants transfer to the Central District.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Could the Central District have original jurisdiction | Park’s action could have been brought in the Central District. | Central District is proper under first-to-file and related-case considerations. | Yes; the case could have been brought in the Central District. |
| Plaintiff's forum choice deference | Plaintiff’s forum is entitled to substantial weight due to choice of venue. | Plaintiff’s choice deserves reduced weight because it is not resident there and related factors apply. | Plaintiff’s venue choice is entitled to less deference due to several circumstances favoring transfer. |
| Convenience of parties and witnesses | No particular convenience shown for Northern District. | Central District more convenient as many parties and key witnesses reside there. | Convenience factors weigh in favor of transfer to the Central District. |
| Ease of access to evidence | Electronic transmission reduces importance of location. | Most documentary evidence is located at Westlake Village, favoring Central District. | Ease of access to evidence favors transfer to the Central District. |
| Interest of justice | Wallerstein consolidation would conserve resources; litigation already active in this district. | Wallerstein may not remain in Northern District; forum-shopping concerns weigh in favor of transfer. | Overall, interest of justice weighs in favor of transfer. |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (1964) (transfers under 1404(a) serve convenience and fairness)
- Continental Grain Co. v. Barge FBL-585, 364 U.S. 19 (1960) (convince to protect litigants from unnecessary expense)
- Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335 (1960) (threshold: could have originally been brought in the destination forum)
- Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1985) (discusses forum-transfer considerations within Ninth Circuit)
- Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (1988) (case-by-case discretion in transfer decisions)
- Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2000) (enumerates transfer factors including convenience and access to evidence)
- Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834 (7th Cir. 1986) (public interest factors in transfer analysis)
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981) (relevance of public interest and forum concerns)
- A.J. Industries, Inc. v. United States District Court, 503 F.2d 384 (3d Cir. 1974) (considerations for transfer when multiple forums exist)