Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01523/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01523-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332pr Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEXANDER MISKAM,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 15CV1523-GPC(JLB)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

TRANSFER TO THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE CENTAL DISTRICT OF

CALIFORNIA; AND DENYING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

[Dkt. Nos. 5, 6.]

vs.

DOLLAR TREE STORES,

Defendant.

Before the Court is Defendant’s motion to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1404(a), and motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6), or in the alternative, motion for a more definite statement pursuant

to Rule 12(e). Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. On August 31, 2015, Defendant

filed a notice of non-receipt of oppositions to its motions. (Dkt. No. 10.) Based on the

reasoning below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to transfer the case to the

United States District Court for the Central District of California, and DENIES

Defendant’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. 

Background

Plaintiff Alexander Miskam (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed a complaint

in San Diego Superior Court against his former employer, Defendant Dollar Tree

Stores (“Dollar Tree”), alleging false imprisonment and wrongful termination. (Dkt.

- 1 - [15CV1523-GPC(JLB)]

Case 3:15-cv-01523-GPC-JLB Document 12 Filed 09/21/15 Page 1 of 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

No. 1-2, Notice of Removal, Ex. A, State Court Compl.) No facts are alleged

concerning the causes of action in the state court form complaint. The only facts

alleged are that he currently lives in San Diego and he was damaged on July 3, 2013. 

(Id. at 2-3.) 

According to Defendant, Plaintiff worked at Dollar Tree’s Big Bear Lake

location from September 2012 until his termination from employment in July 2013. 

(Dkt. No. 5-4, Watson Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff’s personnel file indicates that during most,

if not all of his employment with Dollar Tree, he resided in San Bernardino County. 

(Id. ¶ 5.) 

Discussion

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

court may transfer any civil matter to any other district or division where it might have

been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The purpose of § 1404(a) is to “prevent the waste

of time, energy, and money to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against

unnecessary inconvenience and expense.” Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616

(1964) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). A motion for transfer lies

within the broad discretion of the district court and must be determined on an

individualized basis. See Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir.

2000). 

Courts employ a two-step analysis to determine whether transfer is proper. 

Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 409, 414 (9th Cir. 1985). First, a court must ask

whether the transferee court is one where the action “might have been brought” and

then determine whether “convenience of parties and witnessesin the interest ofjustice”

favor transfer. Id. 

A. Whether the Action Could Have Been Brought in the Central District 

First, Defendant asserts that the case could have been brought in the Central

District of California. A civil action may be brought in

(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants

are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial

- 2 - [15CV1523-GPC(JLB)]

Case 3:15-cv-01523-GPC-JLB Document 12 Filed 09/21/15 Page 2 of 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

district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving

rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the

subject of the action is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an

action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any

judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's

personal jurisdiction with respect to such action. 

28 U.S.C. § 1391. 

Here, Dollar Tree conducts business throughout Southern California and is

subject to personal jurisdiction in the Central District. (Dkt. No. 5-5, Balderas Decl.

¶ 2.) In addition, all of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred at the Big

Bear Lake location which is within the jurisdiction of the Central District. (Dkt. No.

5-4, Watson Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff resided and worked for Dollar Tree in the Central

District at the time of the alleged events. (Id. ¶ 5.) Therefore, the case could have be

brought in the Central District. 

Since the Court determines that the case could have been brought in the Central

District, the Court looks to the convenience of the parties, convenience of the

witnesses, and the interests of justice. 

B. Convenience of the Parties

The plaintiff’s choice of forum is accorded great weight. Lou v. Belzberg, 834

F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987). “The degree to which courts defer to the plaintiff’s

chosen venue is substantially reduced where the plaintiff does not reside in the venue

or where the forum lacks a significant connection to the activities alleged in the

complaint.” Williams v. Bowman, 157 F. Supp. 2d 1003, 1107 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (citing

Fabus Corp. v. Asiana Exp. Corp., C-00-3172PJH, 2001 WL 253185 (N.D. Cal. Mar.

5, 2001)). In arguing for transfer of venue, “[t]he defendant must make a strong

showing ofinconvenience to warrant upsetting the plaintiff’s choice of forum.” Decker

Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). A

plaintiff’s choice of forum may receive less weight “if the operative facts did not occur

within the forum of original selection and that forum has no particular interest in the

parties or the subject matter.” Partney Const. Inc. v. Ducks Unlimited, Inc., Civil No.

08-574-SU, 2008 WL 4838849, at *2 (citing Pacific Car & Foundry Co. v. Pence, 403

- 3 - [15CV1523-GPC(JLB)]

Case 3:15-cv-01523-GPC-JLB Document 12 Filed 09/21/15 Page 3 of 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

F.2d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 1968)).

Here, the Complaint states that Plaintiff lives in San Diego ; however, the facts

1

arising from the causes of action occurred while employed at Dollar Tree’s Big Bear

Lake location which is within the Central District. Without an opposition by Plaintiff

explaining the inconvenience of litigating in the Central District, the Court gives

Plaintiff’s choice of forum little weight. The Court concludes that this factor favors

transfer. 

C. Convenience of the Witnesses

“Convenience of witnesses is often the most important factor in determining

whether or not to transfer a case.” Partney Const., Inc., 2008 WL 4838849, at *3. 

Defendant states that most of its percipient witnesses, including current and

former employees of Dollar Tree’s Big Bear Lake store, live and work in or around San

Bernardino County. Therefore, it would be unduly inconvenient for the majority of the

witnesses to travel to the Southern District. 

Betsy Watson, the district manager who wasinvolved in the decision to suspend

and terminate Plaintiff’s employment and investigatedPlaintiff’s complaint concerning

his suspension, resides within the Central District. (Dkt. No. 5-4, Watson Decl. ¶¶ 7,

9.) Dollar Tree’s former employees and most all other key witnesses also reside in San

Bernardino County. (Dkt. No. 5-5, Balderas Decl. ¶¶ 7-8.) As to those who reside

outside of San Bernardino, one witness, the former store manager during Plaintiffs’

employment with Dollar Tree, resides in Ohio. (Dkt. No. 5-3, Murphy Decl. ¶ 3). In

addition, Reed Balderas, the regional human resources manager, who was consulted

about the termination, resides in San Diego. (Dkt. No. 5-Balderas Decl. ¶ 6, 8.) Since

Balderas travels throughout southern California and parts of Nevada, traveling to the

Central District Court is not inconvenient to him. (Id. ¶ 8.) In addition, Plaintiff’s

physical personnel file is located at the Big Bear Lake Dollar Tree Store location. 

Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s social media page now states that he lives in 1

Big Bear Lake. (Dkt. No. 5-3, Murphy Decl., Ex. 1.) 

- 4 - [15CV1523-GPC(JLB)]

Case 3:15-cv-01523-GPC-JLB Document 12 Filed 09/21/15 Page 4 of 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

(Dkt. No. 5-4, Balderas Decl. ¶ 4.) The remaining documents, such as electronic parts

of his personnel file, are located in Chesapeake, Virginia, Dollar Tree’s corporate

offices. (Id.) 

Since many of the witnesses are located in the Central District, the Court

concludes that the convenience of the witnesses weigh in favor of transfer. 

D. Interests of Justice

Section 1404(a) was designed to prevent unnecessary inconvenience and

expense to parties, witnesses, and the public. Continental Grain Co. v. The FBL-585,

364 U.S. 19, 21 (1960). The inquiry into whether another forum better serves the

interest of justice is “not whether one venue or another would be the best venue; but

rather whether there is a venue that is more convenient.” F.T.C. v. Watson Pharms.,

Inc., 611 F. Supp. 2d 1081, 1086 (C.D. Cal. 2009). 

Here, there is a greater public interest in adjudicating Plaintiff’s case in the

Central District because the events took place in the Central District. See Clark v.

Sprint Spectrum L.P., No. C 10-3625 SI, 2010 WL 5173872, at *5 (N.D. Cal. 2010)

(“while the Central District's local interest in the controversy may not be substantially

stronger than the Northern District’s, it nevertheless remains stronger because the

events at issue took place there.”) The Court concludes the Defendant has

demonstrated that transferring this action to the Central District of California is more

convenient for the parties and the witnessesinvolved, and will better serve the interests

of justice. 

Based on an analysis of the factors, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to

transfer venue to the Central District of California. 

E. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

Because this case will be transferred to the Central District of California, the

Court denies Defendant’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. Plaintiff may re-file the

motion in the appropriate forum after this case is transferred.

/ / / /

- 5 - [15CV1523-GPC(JLB)]

Case 3:15-cv-01523-GPC-JLB Document 12 Filed 09/21/15 Page 5 of 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

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to change venue and transfersthe case

to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Court also

DENIES without prejudice Defendant’s motion to dismiss subject to re-filing when the

case is transferred to the Central District of California. The hearing set for September

25, 2015 shall be vacated.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 21, 2015

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 6 - [15CV1523-GPC(JLB)]

Case 3:15-cv-01523-GPC-JLB Document 12 Filed 09/21/15 Page 6 of 6