Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01234/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01234-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DR. STEPHEN PAPALEO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CINGULAR WIRELESS CORPORATION,

Defendant /

No. C-07-1234 MMC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE OR

STAY PROCEEDING; VACATING

HEARING 

Before the Court is defendant Cingular Wireless Corporation’s “Motion to Transfer

Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), or Stay Proceeding,” filed March 29, 2007. 

Plaintiffs Stephen Papaleo and Andrew Rudich have filed opposition, to which defendant

has replied. Having considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the

motion, the Court deems the matters suitable for decision on the papers, VACATES the

hearing scheduled for May 4, 2007, and rules as follows.

Defendant, pursuant to § 1404(a), seeks a transfer to the Western District of

Washington. "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).

Here, for the reasons stated by defendant, the action “might have been brought” in

the Western District of Washington, specifically, because defendant is subject to personal

Case 3:07-cv-01234-MMC Document 27 Filed 04/26/07 Page 1 of 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

2

jurisdiction therein. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) (holding, as to action against defendant

corporation, venue proper in any district in which defendant is subject to personal

jurisdiction); (see also Compl. ¶ 12 (alleging defendant provides “customers wireless voice

and data service over a nationwide wireless network”).)

With respect to the issue of convenience, the Court finds, as set forth below, that the

Western District of Washington is a more convenient forum. 

At the outset, the Court finds plaintiffs’ choice of forum is entitled to “less weight”

than that to which it might otherwise be entitled, because plaintiffs seek to proceed on

behalf of a nationwide class of defendants’ customers. See Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F. 2d

730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding “when an individual brings a derivative suit or represents a

class, the named plaintiff’s choice of forum is given less weight”). Plaintiffs’ argument that

the “general rule” that plaintiffs’ choice of forum in a putative class action is not entitled to

any significant deference “should give way where there is a contractual provision specifying

the law to apply,” (see Pls.’ Opp. at 6:1-3), is unpersuasive because the substantive law

that would apply if the action were tried in this district will also apply in the transferee

district. See Ferens v. John Deere Co., 494 U.S. 516, 519 (1990) (holding transferee

district, following transfer under § 1404(a), must apply choice of law rules applicable in

transferor court).

With respect to the “feasibility of consolidation,” the Court finds such factor weighs

heavily in favor of transfer and, given the circumstances present herein, outweighs the

deference due plaintiffs’ choice of forum. See A. J. Industries v. United States District

Court, 503 F. 2d 384, 389 (9th Cir. 1974) (internal citation omitted) (holding “feasibility of

consolidation” with action in transferee court is “significant factor in a transfer decision” and

“even the pendency of an action in another district is important because of the positive

effects it might have in possible consolidation of discovery and convenience to witnesses

and parties”). Plaintiffs allege four legal claims on behalf of a putative class based on

defendant’s having imposed an $18 “upgrade,” “transfer,” or “network switching charge.” 

(See Compl. ¶ 1.) The identical legal claims asserted herein, based on the imposition of

Case 3:07-cv-01234-MMC Document 27 Filed 04/26/07 Page 2 of 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

1

Neither party suggests that any third-party witness resides in the instant district.

2

In light of this finding, the Court does not address defendant’s alternative request to

stay the instant action.

3

the same $18 charge, are alleged in an earlier-filed consolidated putative class action

pending in the Western District of Washington. (See Cronin Decl. Ex. 5 ¶¶ 61, 67.b., 67.d,

80.) Because the putative class alleged herein is entirely subsumed within the putative

class before the Western District of Washington, it is more than simply “feasible” that the

two actions could be consolidated if they were pending in the same district; rather, such

consolidation is highly likely.

Additionally, with respect to the convenience of third-party witnesses, which often is

the most significant factor, the Court finds transfer would be substantially more convenient

for each such witness, because such witnesses would not be required to engage in

duplicative litigation or travel to two different forums to attend court proceedings. See, e.g.,

Gundle Lining Constr. Corp. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 844 F. Supp. 1163, 1166 (S.D.

Texas 1994) (“It is the convenience of non-party witnesses . . . that is the more important

factor and is accorded greater weight [than the convenience of party witnesses].”)1

In sum, as has been recognized in the context of multidistrict transfer under 28

U.S.C. § 1407, “[t]he objective of transfer is to eliminate duplication in discovery, avoid

conflicting rulings and schedules, reduce litigation cost, and save time and effort of the

parties, the attorneys, the witnesses, and the courts.” See Manual for Complex Litigation

(Fourth) § 20.131 (2004). These objectives are equally applicable in the context of a

transfer under § 1404(a), and will be effectuated by transfer of the instant action to the

Western District of Washington.

Accordingly, the instant action will be transferred to the Western District of

Washington.2

//

//

//

Case 3:07-cv-01234-MMC Document 27 Filed 04/26/07 Page 3 of 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

4

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, defendant’s motion to transfer is hereby GRANTED, and the

instant action is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Western District of Washington, pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 26, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01234-MMC Document 27 Filed 04/26/07 Page 4 of 4