Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-01236/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-01236-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance 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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

ROBERT WATTS, on behalf of himself

individually and all others similarly

situated,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALLSTATE INDEMNITY CO., an

Illinois corporation, et al.,

Defendants. 

No. C 08-1236 SBA

ORDER

[Docket No. 34]

For the following reasons, the Court orders all parties to to file briefs of ten pages or less,

within seven days of the date of the entry of this Order, stating why the Court should or should not

transfer this matter to the Eastern District of California, under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Alternatively,

plaintiff may withdraw this matter and re-file it in the Eastern District. 

On February 29, 2008, plaintiff filed a Complaint in this matter alleging breach of contract,

bad faith, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud and misrepresentation, unfair

competition under section 17200 et seq. of the California Code of Business and Professions, and

violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) under 18 U.S.C.

§§ 1961 et seq. See Docket No. 1 at 1, 17-24. Plaintiff alleges defendants refused to pay for the

inspection or replacement of his seat belts or pretensioners after his vehicle was involved in a

collision. See id. ¶¶ 37-46. Plaintiff seeks to proceed on behalf of himself and others similarly

situated. See id. at 1. 

In his Complaint, plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District because

defendants do business in it. Id. ¶ 7. He further alleges a “substantial portion of the transactions and

wrongs that are the subject of this Complaint . . . occurred in substantial part in the Northern District

of California.” Id. And, he alleges the “obligations and liability referenced in this Complaint arose

in the Northern District of California and elsewhere in the country.” Id. ¶ 8.

///

Case 4:08-cv-01236-SBA Document 38 Filed 07/14/08 Page 1 of 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

2

On April 30, 2008, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. See Docket No. 13 at 1 (the

“Motion”). On June 17, 2008, the Court issued an Order denying the Motion, because defendants

failed to meet and confer with plaintiff, as required by the Court’s Standing Order for Civil Cases. 

See Docket No. 26 (the “Order”). 

In addition, the Court noted the filed pleadings showed that during the time giving rise to this

matter, plaintiff resided in Sacramento, California, and his insurance agent (also defendants’ agent)

was also located in Sacramento, California. See Mot., Ex. “A” at 1. The Court further noted

plaintiff’s counsel is located in Sacramento, California. See Compl. at 1. Thus, in an effort to

clarify whether or not this matter was properly venued in the Northern District, in the Order, the

Court directed that:

Watts has ten days to file a venue declaration explaining his connection to the

Northern District of California (the “Venue Declaration”). Specifically, Watts is to

identify the locations of [1] the collision giving rise to this matter, [2] the subsequent

service of the vehicle, and [3] “the failure to inspect and repair seat belts

pretensioners.” 

Order at 2:11-14.

On June 27, 2008, plaintiff filed a Declaration of Jennifer B. Euler in Support of Venue in

the Northern District (the “Declaration”) [Docket No. 29]. In it, his counsel merely restates

paragraphs from the Complaint, which indicate, without any specifics, that defendants do business in

the Northern District. See Decl. As a result, on July 2, 2008, the Court ordered plaintiff to file

within five days a declaration answering the three questions from its June 17, 2008 Order.

On July 3, 2008, plaintiff re-filed his June 27, 2008 declaration, apparently in error. See

Docket No. 33. This same day, he also filed a Second Declaration of Jennifer B. Euler in Support of

Venue in the Northern District. See Docket No. 34. According to this declaration, on March 29,

2006, plaintiff’s vehicle was involved in a collision in Sacramento, California. Id. ¶ 3. Afterwards,

his vehicle was repaired at a body shop in Rancho Cordova, just east of Sacramento. Id. ¶ 3. Then,

on October 11, 2007, an Allstate claims adjuster in Sacramento denied plaintiff’s request to replace

his seat belt tensioners. Id. ¶¶ 5-6.

Case 4:08-cv-01236-SBA Document 38 Filed 07/14/08 Page 2 of 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

1 For counting purposes, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a)(2) shall not apply to this period.

3

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT as all the events giving rise to this

matter occurred in the Eastern District of California, all parties shall file briefs of ten pages or less,

within seven days of the date of the entry of this Order,1

 stating why the Court should or should not

transfer this matter to the Eastern District of California, under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Alternatively,

plaintiff may withdraw this matter and re-file it in the Eastern District. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

July 14, 2008 _________________________________

Saundra Brown Armstrong 

United States District Judge

Case 4:08-cv-01236-SBA Document 38 Filed 07/14/08 Page 3 of 3