Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03805/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03805-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AV MEDIA, PTE, LTD., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

OMNIMOUNT SYSTEMS INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-03805 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not

cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these

authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If

the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the

authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). 

The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such

authority.

The Court tentatively DENIES Defendant’s motion to transfer venue.

Case 3:06-cv-03805-JSW Document 29 Filed 09/28/06 Page 1 of 2
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

The parties shall have 15 minutes to address the following questions:

1. Unless the balance of convenience is strongly in favor of the defendant, plaintiff’s

choice of forum should not, or should rarely be disturbed. Even considering the fact that

here Plaintiffs’ choice of forum is entitled to less weight because they are foreign

companies and the dispute did not arise in this district, does OmniMount meet its heavy

burden of showing a clear balance of inconveniences to it should the Court deny the

motion? Do OmniMount’s arguments regarding transfer essentially seek to shift the

balance of convenience or equalize the relative inconvenience? Is this proper? 

2. In light of Batson. v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), which prohibits reliance on racebased generalizations in the selection of jurors, how can the Court premise any

determination of the appropriate forum on the Plaintiffs’ selection of this district due to

its large Asian-American population? See Boyd v. Snyder, 44 F. Supp. 2d 966, 973-74

(N.D. Ill. 1999). 

3. Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-03805-JSW Document 29 Filed 09/28/06 Page 2 of 2