Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00117/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00117-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 This matter is deemed to be suitable for decision without oral *

argument. E.D. Cal. R. 230(g).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES M. DAVIS; ANDREA E. DAVIS, )

)

Plaintiffs, ) 2:10-cv-00117-GEB-EFB

)

v. ) ORDER GRANTING EACH

) DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER

TOP FLIGHT ACADEMY, LLC, dba TOP ) VENUE*

FLIGHT ACADEMY, a Utah Limited )

Liability Company; CLAYTON )

JUSTENSEN; CINDY JOHANSEN; DOES 1 )

through 10, inclusive, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Defendants Top Flight Academy, LLC (“Top Flight”) and

Clayton Justensen filed a motion on April 1, 2010, seeking to transfer

this case to the United States District Court for the Central Division

of Utah under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). (Docket No. 9.) Defendant Cindy

Johansen filed a separate motion to transfer in which she “joins and

incorporates by reference” the arguments in Top Flight and Justensen’s

motion. (Johansen Mot. to Transfer 1: 26-28) (Docket No. 17.) 

Plaintiffs filed a single opposition brief opposing both transfer

motions, primarily arguing that their son and main witness, Shawn

Berwind, resides in the Eastern District of California. Plaintiffs’

claims relate to their allegation that their son Shawn began a sexual

Case 2:10-cv-00117-GEB-EFB Document 25 Filed 05/27/10 Page 1 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

relationship with his Top Flight instructor, Defendant Johansen, while

enrolled at Top Flight. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that on or about

October 31, 2007, Plaintiffs entered into a written and oral

agreement, under which they enrolled their son Shawn at Top Flight. 

(Compl. ¶ 5.) Top Flight is a “Utah-licensed residential treatment

center” located in Mount Pleasant, Utah. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 51.) Plaintiffs

allege that while Shawn was enrolled at Top Flight, he met Defendant

Johansen, an instructor at Top Flight, and began an inappropriate

sexual relationship with her. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 12.) 

Plaintiffs allege that Shawn left Top Flight and returned to

his home in Sacramento in early July 2008. (Id. ¶ 17.) After Shawn’s

return, Plaintiffs allege they discovered a letter Johansen wrote

Shawn, which “read like a love letter . . . .” (Id. ¶ 19.) 

Plaintiffs also allege they also discovered emails Johansen sent Shawn

that were “overly familiar and flirtatious.” (Id. ¶ 23.) Plaintiffs

allege that in one e-mail, Johansen suggested that Shawn and his

friends drive from Sacramento to Utah to receive tutoring. (Id.) In

December 2008, Shawn allegedly ran away from home on several

occasions. (Id. ¶25.) During one absence, Plaintiffs allege Shawn

told them he was in Utah. (Id.) 

Plaintiffs further allege they wrote Top Flight a letter

dated December 5, 2008, in which they demanded reimbursement for the

tuition and expenses they incurred to enroll Shawn at Top Flight. 

(Id. ¶ 29.) Defendant Justensen, the Executive Director and part

owner of Top Flight, allegedly refused the reimbursement request. 

(Id. ¶¶ 6, 30.) 

Case 2:10-cv-00117-GEB-EFB Document 25 Filed 05/27/10 Page 2 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed their complaint in this action,

in which they seek damages under Title IX of the Education Amendments

of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., and allege the following state

claims: negligence, negligent supervision and hiring, breach of

contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), “a district court may transfer

any civil action to any other district or division where it might have

been brought” “[f]or the convenience of [the] parties and witnesses,

[or] in the interest of justice . . . .” “[A] two-step analysis [is

used under section 1404(a)] to determine whether a transfer is

proper.” Gonsalves v. Infosys Techs., LTD, No. C 09-04112 MHP, 2010

WL 1854146, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2010). “The threshold question

under section 1404(a) requires the court to determine whether the case

could have been brought in the forum to which the transfer is sought. 

If venue would be appropriate in the would-be transferee court, then

the court must make an individualized, case-by-case consideration of

convenience and fairness.” Id. (quotations and citations omitted). 

In deciding whether transfer is convenient and fair, “multiple

factors” are weighed, including “(1) the location where the relevant

agreements were negotiated and executed, (2) the state that is most

familiar with the governing law, (3) the plaintiff’s choice of forum,

(4) the respective parties’ contacts with the forum, (5) the contacts

relating to the plaintiff’s cause of action in the chosen forum, (6)

the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums, (7) the

availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling

non-party witnesses, and (8) the ease of access to sources of proof.” 

Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000)

Case 2:10-cv-00117-GEB-EFB Document 25 Filed 05/27/10 Page 3 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

(citations omitted). Additionally, a contractual forum selection

clause and any relevant public policy of the forum state are

“significant” factors in this analysis. Id. at 499. However, “[n]o

single factor is dispositive, and a district court has broad

discretion to adjudicate motions for transfer on a case-by-case

basis.” Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne, No. C 08-1339

CW, 2008 WL 4543043, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2008) (citations

omitted). “The party seeking transfer for convenience . . . generally

bears the burden to show that another forum is more convenient and

serves the interest of justice. The inquiry is not whether one venue

or another would be the best venue; but rather whether there is a

venue that is more convenient.” F.T.C. v. Watson Pharms., Inc., 611

F. Supp. 2d 1081, 1086 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (citing GNC Franchising, 211

F.3d at 499).

III. DISCUSSION

A. This Action Could Have Been Filed Initially in the United States

District Court for the Central Division of Utah

Defendants argue transfer to the United States District

Court for the Central Division of Utah is permissible because

Plaintiffs could have initially filed their complaint in that judicial

district. (Top Flight Mot. to Transfer 5:21-6:5.) Plaintiffs do not

dispute that this case could have initially been filed in the United

States District Court for the Central Division of Utah.

B. Multiple Factors Weigh in Favor of Transferring this Action to the

United States District Court for the Central Division of Utah

1. Forum Selection Clause

Defendants primary argument supporting transfer is that a

clause in the contract entered into between Plaintiff James Davis and

Top Flight is a “forum selection clause” which “designat[es] that any

Case 2:10-cv-00117-GEB-EFB Document 25 Filed 05/27/10 Page 4 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

dispute between the parties . . . [be] subject to the jurisdiction of

Sanpete County, Utah.” (Top Flight Mot. to Transfer 3:22-26.) 

Plaintiffs respond that the contractual provision only applies to two

of Plaintiffs’ five claims and is unenforceable. (Opp’n 2:25-3:15,

4:16-6:10.)

The contractual provision the parties characterize as a

“forum selection clause” states:

CHOICE OF JURISDICTION, LAW AND OTHER MATTERS:

[James M. Davis] agrees to be subject to

jurisdiction of Sanpete County, Utah in any

dispute between the parties to this Agreement.

(Delanoy Decl., Ex. A ¶ 8.) This contractual provision is not a forum

selection clause since it only concerns jurisdiction. “When only

jurisdiction is specified[,] the clause will generally not be enforced

[as a forum selection clause] without some further language indicating

the parties’ intent to make jurisdiction exclusive.” Docksider, Ltd.

v. Sea Technology, Ltd., 875 F.2d 762, 764 (9th Cir. 1989) (citations

omitted). Therefore, this contractual provision does not favor

transfer.

2. The Location Where The Relevant Agreements Were Negotiated and

Executed

Neither party specifically addresses the factor concerning

the location where the relevant agreement was negotiated and executed. 

However, Plaintiffs allege they “entered into a written and oral

agreement” with Top Flight in Mount Pleasant, Utah. (Compl. ¶ 51.) 

Since this allegation shows that Plaintiffs executed the contract in

Utah, this factor weighs in favor of transfer.

3. State That Is Familiar With the Governing Law

Defendants argue the contract contains a provision requiring

that Utah law governs any dispute between the parties, and therefore,

Case 2:10-cv-00117-GEB-EFB Document 25 Filed 05/27/10 Page 5 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

this factor weighs in favor of transfer. (Mot. to Transfer 8:14-23.) 

Plaintiff responds “the law at issue here is federal law (Title IX)

and basic contract and negligence law.” (Opp’n 6:19-20.)

The contract includes a “choice of law” provision, which

provides in pertinent part, “Utah law shall govern this Agreement.” 

(Delanoy Decl., Ex. A. ¶ 8.) Accordingly, Utah law, at a minimum,

will apply to Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim. However,

California choice of law principles will likely determine whether

California or Utah law is applicable to Plaintiffs’ other state law

claims. See Shannon-Vail Five Inc. v. Bunch, 270 F.3d 1207, 1210 (9th

Cir. 2001) (stating that “[a]fter a transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1404(a), the transferee district court generally must apply the state

law that the transferor district court would have applied had the case

not been transferred.”) Therefore, this factor has not been shown to

weigh in favor of transfer.

4. Plaintiffs’ Choice of Forum

Plaintiffs elected to file suit in California, the state in

which Plaintiffs and their son, Shawn, reside. Plaintiffs choice of

forum is generally a factor weighing in favor of Plaintiffs’ chosen

forum. However, where the forum lacks any significant contact with

the activities alleged in the complaint, plaintiff[s’] choice of forum

is given considerably less weight, even if the plaintiff[s] [are]

resident[s] of the forum.” Cohen v. State Farm and Cas. Co., No.

C1:09-cv-1051 AWI DLB, 2009 WL 2500729, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 14,

2009) (quotations and citations omitted).

California lacks significant contacts with the activities

alleged in the complaint. Plaintiffs executed their contract with Top

Flight in Utah, which is also where Johansen, a Top Flight instructor,

Case 2:10-cv-00117-GEB-EFB Document 25 Filed 05/27/10 Page 6 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

is alleged to have engaged in a sexually inappropriate relationship

with Plaintiffs’ son. Although deference is given to Plaintiffs’

choice of forum, and therefore, this factor weighs against transfer,

the weight of this factor is minimal since Utah has a much greater

connection to Plaintiffs’ claims than California.

5. The Respective Parties’ Contacts with the Forum

Further, the parties’ respective contacts with the forum

favors transfer. Although Plaintiffs reside in California, they

entered into a contract with Top Flight in Utah, under which their son

was to receive services in Utah. (Compl. ¶ 51.) Plaintiffs’ son was

enrolled at Top Flight from late October 2007 to July 2008, which is

where and when his allegedly inappropriate sexual relationship with

his Top Flight instructor began. (Id. ¶¶ 12-17.) Further, each 

individual defendant is a Utah resident. (Id. ¶¶ 5-8.) There are no

allegations in the complaint suggesting that either individual

defendant has a significant contact to California. Since the

“majority of the parties’ contacts are with [Utah] and not California,

this factor weighs in favor of transfer.” Cohen, 2009 WL 2500729, at

*3. 

6. Contacts Relating to Plaintiffs’ Claims

The contacts relating to Plaintiffs’ claims also favor

transfer. The contract that Plaintiffs allege Top Flight breached was

entered into and was to be performed in Utah and is governed by Utah

law. (Compl. ¶ 51.) Further, Top Flight’s alleged negligent

supervision and hiring occurred in Utah as did Defendant Johansen’s,

alleged negligence. (Id. ¶¶ 40-41, 43-48.) The alleged “sexual

harassment” on which Plaintiffs’ Title IX claim is based also occurred

primarily in Utah. (Id. ¶ 31-35.) Therefore, there are no meaningful

Case 2:10-cv-00117-GEB-EFB Document 25 Filed 05/27/10 Page 7 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

contacts with the Eastern District of California and this factor

favors transfer.

7. The Differences in the Costs of Litigation in the Two Forums

Neither party has specifically addressed the differences in

costs of litigating in the two forums. Therefore, it is unknown

whether the cost to litigate in Utah is greater than in California. 

Plaintiffs argue their “main witness,” Shawn, “is currently unemployed

and in junior college making his attendance [in Utah] financially and

pragmatically difficult.” (Opp’n 7:26-8:1.) However, if this action

remains in California, the individual defendants will have to travel

from Utah to California. Nevertheless, Defendants have not shown that

this factor favors transfer. 

8. Availability of Compulsory Process to Compel Attendance

Defendants argue the factor concerning the availability of

compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling non-party

witnesses weighs in favor of transfer since “[a]ll of the witnesses

who may be called to testify via subpoena are outside the subpoena

power of the California Eastern District Court.” (Top Flight Mot. to

Transfer 9:16-17.) Defendants further argue “Plaintiffs may call

Shawn’s counselor, Eldon Barnes as well as non-party students and

teachers who were witnesses to Shawn’s relationship with Johansen, all

who are Utah residents. Plaintiffs respond that “any inability to

secure witness testimony from non-party witnesses in Utah causes

Plaintiffs potentially more harm” and they have “already considered

this matter and opted to pursue their claims in the Eastern District.” 

(Opp’n 7:20-23.)

“To demonstrate inconvenience of witnesses, the moving party

must identify relevant witnesses, state their location and describe

Case 2:10-cv-00117-GEB-EFB Document 25 Filed 05/27/10 Page 8 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

their testimony and its relevance.” Williams v. Bowman, 157 F. Supp.

2d 1103, 1108 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (citation omitted). Further, “it is

the convenience of non-party witnesses, rather than that of employee

witnesses, . . . that is the more important factor and is accorded

greater weight.” Cohen, 2009 WL 2500729, at *4; see also Lum v.

Scitor Corp., No. C 09-5828 JF, 2010 WL 1460314, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr.

9, 2010) (stating “Defendant’s employees are not third-party

witnesses, and compulsory process is unnecessary as to these

individuals.”) 

Defendants merely make reference to other “non-party

students and teachers who were witnesses to Shawn’s relationship with

Johansen.” This reference is insufficient to “show[] the

[in]convenience of these unnamed witnesses.” Williams, 157 F. Supp.

2d at 1108. Therefore, Defendants have not shown that this factor

favors transfer.

9. Ease of Access to Sources of Proof

Defendants argue the ease of access to sources of proof

factor favors transfer since there are limited documents in the case

and the majority of witnesses and parties reside in Utah. (Top Flight

Mot. to Transfer 9:4-13). Plaintiffs do not address this factor

specifically but argue “the central witness in this matter is the

alleged victim, Shawn, a Sacramento resident.” (Opp’n 7:8-9.) While

Defendants have not sufficiently identified non-party witnesses who

reside in Utah, Defendants Johansen and Justensen are Utah residents. 

Therefore, this factor does not weigh for or against transfer. 

10. Relevant Policy of Forum State

Plaintiffs also argue that transfer would “contravene

California public policy,” and therefore the factor concerning the

Case 2:10-cv-00117-GEB-EFB Document 25 Filed 05/27/10 Page 9 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

relevant policy of the forum state weighs against transfer. (Opp’n

5:24.) Plaintiffs, however, have not identified any relevant public

policy that would be impaired by transfer of this action to Utah. 

Therefore, Plaintiffs have not shown that this factor weighs against

transfer.

IV. CONCLUSION

On the balance, the section 1404(a) factors weigh in favor

of transferring this action to the United States District Court for

the Central Division of Utah. Utah has more significant contacts to

the Plaintiffs’ claims and the parties. Therefore, each Defendants’

motion to transfer is granted and this action is transferred to the

United States District Court for the Central Division of Utah.

Dated: May 26, 2010

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:10-cv-00117-GEB-EFB Document 25 Filed 05/27/10 Page 10 of 10