Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06601/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06601-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 Although not necessary in resolving the motion, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’

motion to file a sur-reply.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JACO ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

APPLIANCE RECYCLING CENTERS OF

AMERICA, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-06601 JSW

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO

DISMISS AND TO TRANSFER AND

REQUIRING FURTHER BRIEFING

This matter is currently set for a hearing on February 16, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. on Defendant

Edward R. Cameron’s motion to dismiss for improper venue or to transfer. The focus of the

pending motion is to dismiss the individual, Edward R. Cameron, from the complaint. By

virtue of Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion and considering the declaration submitted by Mr.

Cameron, the GRANTS the motion to dismiss Mr. Cameron from the complaint with prejudice.1

However, the motion, almost as an afterthought, seeks to transfer venue of the action

against Mr. Cameron to the Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The

Court finds this request moot and it is DENIED. Therefore, the hearing date of February 16,

2007 is HEREBY VACATED.

However, by virtue of the briefing provided to the Court, it is aware that the entire

matter may properly be before the Central District Court. Therefore, the Court HEREBY

ORDERS the parties to file supplemental briefing on the question whether the entire case

should be transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); see also Muldoon v. Tropitone Furniture

Case 3:06-cv-06601-JSW Document 25 Filed 01/12/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Co., 1 F.3d 964, 965 (9th Cir. 1993) (describing sua sponte transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1404). 

“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court

may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.” 

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). As the moving parties, Appliance Recycling Centers of American, Inc.

and Application Recycling Centers of America-California, Inc. bear the burden of showing that

the inconvenience of litigating in this forum favors transfer. See E. & J. Gallo Winery v. F. &

P.S.p.A., 899 F. Supp. 465, 466 (E.D. Cal. 1994) (noting that to meet this burden requires

production of affidavits or declarations identifying key witnesses and anticipated testimony).

 A district court has discretion “to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an

‘individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.’” Stewart Org., Inc. v.

Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622

(1964)). In order for a district court to transfer an action under section 1404, it must make the

following two findings: (1) that the transferee court is one where the action “might have been

brought;” and (2) that the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interest of justice

favor transfer. Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 409, 414 (9th Cir. 1985). 

To make this determination, the Court will consider the following factors: plaintiffs’

choice of forum; convenience of the parties; convenience of the witnesses; access to

compulsory process of third party witnesses; ease of access to sources of proof; local interest in

the controversy; familiarity of each forum with the applicable law; and relative court congestion

in each forum. Gulf Oil Co. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508-09 (1947); Decker Coal Co. v.

Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). It is within the Court’s

discretion to determine whether the convenience of the parties, convenience of the witnesses,

and the interests of justice would be served by transfer. E. & J. Gallo, 899 F. Supp. 2d at 466. 

The Court will also consider the fact that Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc. filed a

possibly related action in the Central District action first. See Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld

Products, Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 625 (9th Cir. 1991) (discussing “first-to-file” rule).

Case 3:06-cv-06601-JSW Document 25 Filed 01/12/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Defendants shall file their opening brief no later than February 9, 2007. Plaintiffs’

opposition brief shall be filed no later than February 23, 2007 and Defendants’ reply brief, if

any, shall be filed no later than March 2, 2007. The hearing on the motion to transfer venue

shall be heard on March 23, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. Further, the initial Case Management

Conference, currently set for March 16, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. is HEREBY RESET to March 23,

2007 at 9:00 a.m. following the hearing on the motion to transfer venue.

If the Court determines that the matter is suitable for resolution without oral argument, it

will so advise the parties in advance of the hearing date. If the parties wish to modify this

schedule, they may submit for the Court’s consideration a stipulation and proposed order

demonstrating good cause for any modification requested.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-06601-JSW Document 25 Filed 01/12/07 Page 3 of 3