Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-05133/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-05133-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1836(b) - Civil Action to Protect Trade Secrets

---

Case No.: 5:19-cv-05133-EJD

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYING 

MOTION TO TRANSFER

1

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DEGREE MECHANICAL, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

J.C. WELDING, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:19-cv-05133-EJD

 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO 

DISMISS; DENYING MOTION TO

TRANSFER VENUE; DENYING 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR LEAVE 

TO FILE DEPOSITION TESTIMONY

Re: Dkt. Nos. 19, 25, 26

This is primarily an action for trade secret misappropriation. Plaintiffs Degree Mechanical, 

Inc. and Degree Mechanical, LLC (collectively “Plaintiffs”) allege that Defendants J.C. Welding, 

LLC, Mrs. Shine, LLC, Juan Daniel Castillo, Jose Castillo, Juan Castillo, Virginia Castillo 

(collectively “Defendants”) stole refrigerator equipment with the intent to acquire and use 

Degree’s proprietary design and systems. Presently before the Court is Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, in the alternative, to transfer the action to the United 

States District Court for the District of Arizona for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, 

and in the interest of justice. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant in part and 

deny in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and deny the motion to transfer.

I. BACKGROUND1

Plaintiff Degree Mechanical, Inc. is a resident of California. Compl. ¶ 1. Co-plaintiff 

Degree Mechanical, LLC is a limited liability company formed under the laws of the State of 

1 The Background is a summary of the allegations in the Complaint.

Case 5:19-cv-05133-EJD Document 31 Filed 01/31/20 Page 1 of 10
Case No.: 5:19-cv-05133-EJD

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYING 

MOTION TO TRANSFER

2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Arizona. Id. ¶ 2. Defendant J.C. Welding, LLC (“J.C. Welding”) is a limited liability company 

which does business in Salinas, California and Yuma, Arizona. Id. ¶ 4. J.C. Welding is allegedly 

a resident of California and Arizona. Id. Defendant Mrs. Shine, LLC is a limited liability 

company which does business in Salinas, California and Yuma, Arizona. Id. ¶ 5. Mrs. Shine, 

LLC is allegedly a resident of the States of California and Arizona. Id. The individual defendants

are family members who own and operate J.C. Welding and Mrs. Shine, LLC and are allegedly 

residents of California, Arizona and/or Mexico. Id. ¶¶ 6-9, 18.

Plaintiffs are industrial refrigeration contractors licensed by California and Arizona. Id. ¶ 

17. Plaintiffs are also licensed to handle chemicals involved in industrial refrigeration. Id. 

Plaintiffs have designed proprietary systems for use in industrial refrigeration, which are 

purchased by vendors throughout the Salinas Valley. Id. 

Plaintiffs hired Defendants to perform welding and fabrication work for multiple 

customers. Id. ¶¶ 19, 22. After working together for a couple of years, in 2019, Defendants began 

submitting invoices to Plaintiff “that were questionable in nature.” Id. ¶ 24. Plaintiffs asked 

Defendants to substantiate the amounts claimed with time sheets or other documentation, but 

Defendants refused to do so. Id. ¶¶ 25, 28, 31-33. Plaintiffs also discovered that Defendants were 

stealing parts from Plaintiffs’ inventory and then billing Plaintiffs’ customers for the stolen parts. 

Id. ¶ 30. 

In February of 2019, Defendants began making false and derogatory statements about 

Plaintiffs to Plaintiffs’ customers. Id. ¶ 34. Defendants also began soliciting business from 

Plaintiffs’ customers and falsely representing that they were licensed industrial refrigeration 

contractors. Id. ¶¶ 36-37. Defendants also stole Plaintiffs’ equipment and other trade secrets, and 

caused other disruptions to Plaintiffs’ business by among other things, refusing to turn over a 

completed project to Plaintiffs’ customer, Taylor Farms, as a means of extortion. Id. ¶¶ 38-60. 

Plaintiffs’ Complaint asserts the following claims: (1) theft and misappropriation of trade 

secrets in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b): (2) extortion; (3) conversion; (4) unfair business 

Case 5:19-cv-05133-EJD Document 31 Filed 01/31/20 Page 2 of 10
Case No.: 5:19-cv-05133-EJD

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYING 

MOTION TO TRANSFER

3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

practices; (5) fraud and deceit; (6) restitution for unjust enrichment; (7) intentional interference 

with prospective economic advantage; and (8) defamation. Plaintiffs later voluntarily dismissed 

all of the claims except the first claim for violation of section 1836. Dkt. No. 24.2

II. STANDARDS

A. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) allows a party to challenge the court’s personal 

jurisdiction over a party. “In opposition to a defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal 

jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction is proper.” Boschetto v. 

Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1015 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1361 (9th 

Cir. 1990)). If a court decides the motion without an evidentiary hearing, “the plaintiff need only 

make a prima facie showing of the jurisdictional facts.” Id. (quoting Caruth v. Int’l 

Psychoanalytical Ass’n, 59 F.3d 126, 127–28 (9th Cir. 1995)). In such cases, the inquiry is 

whether the plaintiff’s pleadings and affidavits make a prima facie showing of personal 

jurisdiction.” Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Uncontroverted allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint must be taken as true, and any conflicts 

between the parties over statements contained in affidavits must be resolved in the plaintiff’s 

favor. Id. 

A court’s power to exercise jurisdiction over a party is limited by both statutory and 

constitutional considerations. First, a long-arm statute must confer jurisdiction over a defendant. 

Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1154–55 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Fireman’s Fund Ins. 

Co. v. Nat’l Bank of Coops., 103 F.3d 888, 893 (9th Cir. 1996)). California’s long arm statute is 

coextensive with the limits of due process. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 125 (2014).

Second, for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant 

consistent with due process, that defendant must have “certain minimum contacts” with the 

relevant forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction “does not offend traditional notions of fair 

2 The state law claims remain pending in state court. Id. 

Case 5:19-cv-05133-EJD Document 31 Filed 01/31/20 Page 3 of 10
Case No.: 5:19-cv-05133-EJD

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYING 

MOTION TO TRANSFER

4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

play and substantial justice.’” Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 801 (quoting Int’l Shoe Co. v. 

Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, (1945); Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Super. Ct. of Cal., Solano Cty., 

480 U.S. 102, 109 (1987) (“[T]he constitutional touchstone” of the determination whether an 

exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with due process “remains whether the defendant 

purposefully established ‘minimum contacts’ in the forum State.”) (quoting Burger King Corp. v. 

Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474 (1985)). 

Under the minimum contacts test, jurisdiction can be either “general” or “specific.” Doe v. 

Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d 915, 923 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam), abrogated on other grounds by 

Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014). “A court may exercise specific jurisdiction where 

the cause of action arises out of or has a substantial connection to the defendant’s contacts with the 

forum.” Glencore Grain Rotterdam B.V. v. Shivnath Rai Harnarain Co., 284 F.3d 1114, 1123 

(9th Cir. 2002) (citing Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 251 (1958)). “Alternatively, a defendant 

whose contacts are substantial, continuous, and systematic is subject to a court’s general 

jurisdiction even if the suit concerns matters not arising out of his contact with the forum.” Id. 

(citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 415 n.9 (1984)). 

B. Motion to Transfer

A court may transfer an action to another district where the action might have been brought 

for the convenience of the parties, the convenience of the witnesses, and in the interest of justice. 

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In determining whether to transfer an action pursuant to section 1404(a), the 

court considers the following factors: (1) the plaintiff’s choice of forum, (2) the convenience of the 

parties, (3) the convenience of the witnesses, (4) ease of access to the evidence, (5) familiarity of 

each forum with the applicable law, (6) feasibility of consideration of other claims, (7) any local 

interest in the controversy, and (8) the relative court congestion and time of trial in each forum. 

Barnes & Noble v. LSI Corp., 823 F. Supp. 2d 980, 993 (N.D. Cal. 2011). “The burden is on the 

party seeking transfer to show that when these factors are applied, the balance of convenience 

clearly favors transfer.” Alul v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. 16-04384 JST, 2016 WL 

Case 5:19-cv-05133-EJD Document 31 Filed 01/31/20 Page 4 of 10
Case No.: 5:19-cv-05133-EJD

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYING 

MOTION TO TRANSFER

5

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

9116934 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2016) (citing Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Savage, 611 

F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979)). A transfer is not appropriate if the result is merely to shift the 

inconvenience from one party to another. Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 645–46 (1964).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

Defendants seek dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. They represent that the 

business entities, J.C. Welding and Mrs. Shine, LLC are Arizona companies that maintain 

facilities in Yuma, Arizona, and not in California. Decl. of Juan D. Castillo ¶¶ 5, 7, 10-11. J.C. 

Welding also represents that all of its fabrication work is done in Arizona, its inventory is stored in 

Arizona, and none of its employees work out of California. Id. ¶¶ 12-14. Mrs. Shine, LLC

represents that it owns real estate in Arizona which it leases to both J.C. Welding and Plaintiffs. 

Id. ¶ 5. Mrs. Shine, LLC is not in the welding or fabrication business. Id. ¶ 7. Defendants also 

represent that the individual Defendants reside and work in Yuma, Arizona. Id. ¶¶ 2-4. As such, 

none of the Defendants are domiciled within California. 

i. Juan D. Castillo, Jose Castillo, Juan Castillo

The sole remaining claim for trade secret theft and misappropriation arises out of

Defendants Juan D. Castillo, Jose Castillo and Juan Castillo’s purposefully directed activities in 

California. Corey Cowan, the President of Degree Mechanical, Inc. and the Manager of Degree 

Mechanical, LLC, describes the alleged misappropriation in his declaration. Cowan Decl. ¶¶ 15-

16. According to Cowan, Juan D. Castillo, Jose Castillo and Juan Castillo went onto Taylor 

Farms’ property in Salinas, California and made drawings of Plaintiffs’ trade secrets including but 

not limited to, chillers, a “compressor skid 250-18”, nitrogen dry expansion tanks and a chiller 

reservoir. Id. ¶ 15. These Defendants also sold a sanitary structure design to a third party in San 

Juan Bautista, California. Id. ¶ 16. Therefore, these allegations support a finding of specific

jurisdiction over these individuals. See Ciena Corp. v. Jarrard, 203 F.3d 312, 318 (4th Cir. 2000) 

Case 5:19-cv-05133-EJD Document 31 Filed 01/31/20 Page 5 of 10
Case No.: 5:19-cv-05133-EJD

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYING 

MOTION TO TRANSFER

6

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(non-resident sales executive’s alleged theft of trade secrets during visits to forum state provided 

sufficient “contacts” for personal jurisdiction).

ii. J.C. Welding

The alleged trade secret theft and misappropriation committed by Juan D. Castillo, Jose 

Castillo and Juan Castillo are attributable to their employer, Defendant J.C. Welding. Therefore, 

the Court may exercise specific jurisdiction over J.C. Welding. See College-Source, Inc. v. 

AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066, 1078 (9th Cir. 2011) (alleged misappropriation committed by 

Chinese contractor employed by defendant was attributed to defendant for jurisdictional purposes).

iii. Mrs. Shine, LLC

Plaintiffs rely on alter ego allegations to confer personal jurisdiction over Defendant Mrs. 

Shine, LLC. If a corporation is the alter ego of another corporation, courts may “pierce the 

corporate veil” jurisdictionally and attribute contacts of one corporation to the other. Certified 

Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. NLRB, 528 F.2d 968, 969 (9th Cir. 1976); In re Chinese-Manufactured 

Drywall Prods. Liab. Litig., 753 F.3d 521, 531-32 (5th Cir. 2014). Two elements must be alleged

to invoke the alter ego doctrine: “First, there must be such a unity of interest and ownership 

between the corporation and its equitable owner that the separate personalities of the corporation 

and the shareholder do not in reality exist. Second, there must be an inequitable result if the acts 

in question are treated as those of the corporation alone.” Neilson v. Union Bank of Cal., 290 F.

Supp. 2d 1101, 1116 (C.D. Cal 2003) (quoting Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Superior Court, 83 Cal. App.

4th 523, 526 (2000)). Here, Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege both elements of alter ego liability.

a. Unity of Interest Factors

“The ‘unity of interest’ element requires ‘a showing that the parent controls the subsidiary 

to such a degree as to render the latter the mere instrumentality of the former.’” Gardner v. 

Starkist Co., No. 19-2561 WHO, 2019 WL 6698109, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2019) (quoting 

Ranza v. Nike, Inc., 793 F.3d 1059, 1073 (9th Cir. 2015)). Courts generally consider the following 

factors to determine whether the unity of interest element is satisfied: 

Case 5:19-cv-05133-EJD Document 31 Filed 01/31/20 Page 6 of 10
Case No.: 5:19-cv-05133-EJD

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYING 

MOTION TO TRANSFER

7

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(1) the commingling of funds and other assets of the entities, (2) the 

holding out by one entity that it is liable for the debts of the other, 

(3) identical equitable ownership of the entities, (4) use of the same 

offices and employees, (5) use of one as a mere shell or conduit for 

the affairs of the other, (6) inadequate capitalization, (7) disregard of 

corporate formalities, (8) lack of segregation of corporate records, 

and (9) identical directors and officers.

Id. (quoting Sandoval v. Ali, 34 F. Supp. 3d 1031, 1040 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Although not every 

factor must be present, a plaintiff must show that one entity directs the “day-to-day operations” 

and that the “entities failed to observe their separate corporate formalities.” Ranza, 793 F.3d at 

1075.

Here, Defendants J.C. Welding and Mrs. Shine, LLC have family members in common. 

Defendant Juan Castillo formed J.C. Welding in 2008 and is its sole member. Decl. of Juan 

Daniel Castillo ¶¶ 5, 9. Juan Castillo’s son, Defendant Juan Daniel Castillo, is the manager of 

J.C. Welding. Id. ¶ 1. Juan Daniel Castillo’s brother, Defendant Jose Castillo, also works at J.C.

Welding. Id. ¶ 8. Juan Castillo is also a member of Mrs. Shine, LLC. Id. ¶ 5. The only other 

member of Mrs. Shine, LLC is Virginia Castillo, the mother of Juan Daniel Castillo. Id. The only 

person who has ownership in both Mrs. Shine, LLC and J.C. Welding is Juan Castillo.

Although family ties may be indicative of an alter ego, Plaintiffs have not presented any 

facts to shown (1) commingling of funds and other assets of the entities, (2) the holding out by one 

entity that it is liable for the debts of the other, (3) identical equitable ownership of the entities, (4) 

use of one as a mere shell or conduit for the affairs of the other, (5) inadequate capitalization, (6) 

disregard of corporate formalities, (7) lack of segregation of corporate records, or (8) identical 

directors and officers. Plaintiffs offer only conclusory allegations, which are insufficient to 

support personal jurisdiction under an alter ego theory. SEC v. Jammin Java Corp., No. 15-8921 

SVW, 2016 WL 6595133, at *10 (C.D. Cal. July 18, 2016). 

Other than Jose Castillo’s common ownership, the only other potentially significant 

connection between J.C. Welding and Mrs. Shine, LLC for purposes of the alter ego doctrine is 

that Mrs. Shine, LLC leased office and industrial shop space to J.C. Welding (and Plaintiffs) in 

Case 5:19-cv-05133-EJD Document 31 Filed 01/31/20 Page 7 of 10
Case No.: 5:19-cv-05133-EJD

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYING 

MOTION TO TRANSFER

8

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Yuma, Arizona. Decl. of Juan Daniel Castillo ¶ 5. Mrs. Shine, LLC also allegedly evicted 

Plaintiffs from the facility because of Plaintiffs’ billing disputes with J.C. Welding. Pls.’ Opp’n at 

13. These allegations are insufficient to shown that J.C. Welding directed the “day-to-day 

operations” of Mrs. Shine, LLC or that the two entities failed to observe their separate corporate 

formalities such that the Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Mrs. Shine, LLC. 

b. Inequitable Result 

“To establish inequity in the absence of alter ego liability, a plaintiff must plead facts 

sufficient to demonstrate that conduct amounting to bad faith makes it inequitable for the 

corporate owner to hide behind the corporate form.” Stewart v. Screen Gems-EMI Music, Inc., 81 

F. Supp. 3d 938, 963 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Here, the Complaint makes no mention of the potential for 

an inequitable result, and Plaintiffs’ opposition brief does not address this element at all. 

Plaintiffs fail to make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts as to Defendant Mrs. 

Shine, LLC. 

iv. Virginia Castillo

Defendant Virginia Castillo does not own J.C. Welding and is not identified as one of the 

individuals who entered Taylor Farms’ property in Salinas, California. See Cowan Decl. ¶ 15 

(“Defendants Juan Castillo, Juan Daniel Castillo and Jose Castillo went onto the Taylor Farms 

property in Salinas, California . . . .”). According to Plaintiffs, however, Virginia Castillo is 

pictured on a website featuring J.C. Welding as a “family business.” Cowan Decl. ¶ 19, Exh. C.

a. Unity of Interest Factors 

As discussed previously above, common ownership may be inferred from a close familial 

relationship. Even so, there are no other facts alleged to show that Virginia Castillo is the alter 

ego of J.C. Welding. Plaintiffs do not allege that Virginia Castillo and J.C. Welding commingled 

their funds; that either of them held themselves out as liable for the debts of the other; that 

Virginia Castillo uses J.C. Welding as a mere shell or conduit for her affairs; that J.C. Welding is 

undercapitalized or disregarded corporate formalities; or that J.C. Welding failed to keep 

Case 5:19-cv-05133-EJD Document 31 Filed 01/31/20 Page 8 of 10
Case No.: 5:19-cv-05133-EJD

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYING 

MOTION TO TRANSFER

9

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

segregated corporate records. Instead, Plaintiffs offers only conclusory allegations. Compl. ¶ 18 

(“Plaintiffs, on information and belief, allege that Defendants have comingled assets, bank 

accounts, and sources of funding among both entities and among Defendants’ personal bank 

accounts.”). Nor do Plaintiffs allege that Virginia Castillo directed the “day-to-day operations” of 

J.C. Welding.

b. Inequitable Result 

The Complaint makes no mention of the potential for an inequitable result if Virginia 

Castillo is not treated as the alter ego of J.C. Welding. Plaintiffs’ opposition brief also fails to 

address this element. 

Plaintiffs fail to make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts as to Defendant 

Virginia Castillo. 

B. Motion to Transfer

Defendants move to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the District 

of Arizona—a district where the case could have been brought. After Defendants filed their 

motion, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed seven of their eight claims, leaving only the trade secret 

misappropriation claim. Now that the case has been significantly narrowed, the Court concludes 

that the pertinent convenience factors do not strongly favor transfer to the District Court of 

Arizona. Defendants will undoubtedly be inconvenienced by litigating here instead of Arizona. 

J.C. Welding operates in Yuma, Arizona. The individual defendants reside and work in Arizona. 

Nevertheless, California is Plaintiffs’ chosen forum. Plaintiffs’ evidence of the alleged trade 

secret misappropriation is in California. Cowan Decl. ¶ 15. In contrast, the witnesses and 

evidence identified by Defendants are relevant to claims that have been voluntarily dismissed. See 

Defs.’ Motion at 23-24 (listing J.C. Welding employees at the Arizona facilities and other 

potential witnesses likely to have information about welding work performed, payment of 

invoices, location and sale of refrigeration equipment and Defendants’ allegedly defamatory 

statements). Defendants do not identify witnesses and evidence in Arizona that are relevant 

Case 5:19-cv-05133-EJD Document 31 Filed 01/31/20 Page 9 of 10
Case No.: 5:19-cv-05133-EJD

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYING 

MOTION TO TRANSFER

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

specifically to the claim for trade secret misappropriation. This district has a significant interest in 

the controversy because Plaintiffs allege that their trade secrets were stolen in California and 

marketed to customers in California. Pls.’ Opp’n at 14. The remaining factors –ease of access to 

the evidence, familiarity of each forum with the applicable law and the relative court congestion 

and time of trial in each forum—are, at best, neutral. Defendants have not shown that the balance 

of convenience clearly favors transfer. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to 

Defendants Mrs. Shine, LLC and Virginia Castillo, and DENIED as to the remaining Defendants. 

The motion to transfer is DENIED without prejudice to renew the motion if Defendants are able to 

present more specific information regarding the identities and location of witnesses and other 

evidence relevant to the trade secret misappropriation claim. Plaintiffs’ motion (Dkt. No. 25) and 

amended motion (Dkt. No. 26) for leave to submit the deposition testimony of Juan Daniel 

Castillo taken in November of 2019 is DENIED as untimely. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 31, 2020

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:19-cv-05133-EJD Document 31 Filed 01/31/20 Page 10 of 10