Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02741/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02741-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

– 1 – 13cv2741 

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 

STEINAR MYHRE, 

 Plaintiff, 

Case No. 13-cv-02741-BAS(RBB) 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO 

DISMISS OR, IN THE 

ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER 

VENUE 

(ECF Nos. 124, 125, 126) 

 v. 

SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST 

CHURCH REFORM MOVEMENT 

AMERICAN UNION 

INTERNATIONAL MISSIONARY 

SOCIETY, ET AL. 

 Defendants. 

Pending before the Court are three motions to dismiss or, in the alternative, 

to transfer venue (ECF Nos. 124, 125, 126), filed by defendants Seventh-Day 

Adventist Church Reform Movement American Union International Missionary 

Society, a New Jersey Corporation (“IMS-New Jersey”); the Seventh-Day 

Adventist Church Reform Movement American Union International Missionary 

Society, a Texas Corporation (“IMS-Texas”); Seventh-Day Adventist Church 

Reform Movement American Union IMS, Inc., a Georgia Corporation (“IMSGeorgia”); Miami Dade Area Seventh-Day Adventist Church Reform Movement, 

International Missionary Society, Inc., a Florida Corporation (“IMS-Miami”); the 

Seventh-Day Adventist Church Reform Movement American Union International 

Case 3:13-cv-02741-BAS-RBB Document 137 Filed 12/08/14 Page 1 of 5
 – 2 – 13cv2741 

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 

Missionary Society, a Florida Corporation (“IMS-Florida”); International 

Missionary Society Seventh-Day Adventist Church Reform Movement General 

Conference (“IMS-General Conference”), and Tampa Bay Area Seventh-Day 

Adventist Church Reform Movement, International Missionary Society, Inc. 

(“IMS-Tampa”) (collectively hereinafter referred to as “Defendants”). Plaintiff 

Steinar Myhre (“Plaintiff”) opposes. 

A hearing on the motions was held before this Court on October 27, 2014. 

The Court, after having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, and 

Plaintiff’s response to evidentiary objections, inclusive of the prior filings 

referenced in those papers, and after full consideration of the matter and hearing 

oral argument, finds as follows: 

1. The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motions to transfer venue and finds 

that the Northern District of Georgia is the proper venue. 

2. Because the Court grants Defendants’ motions to transfer venue, the 

Court declines ruling on the other grounds set forth in Defendants’ motions to 

dismiss. The Court also declines Plaintiff’s request at oral argument to specifically 

rule on Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, finding that issue 

is best reserved for the Northern District of Georgia. 

I. DISCUSSION 

A. Applicable Standards for Transfer of Venue

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court may transfer any civil action for 

the convenience of parties and witnesses, and in the interests of justice, to any 

judicial district where the action might have been brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). 

The United States Supreme Court in Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (1964) 

explained that the purpose of section 1404(a) is to prevent the waste of time, 

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

unnecessary inconvenience and expense. Id. at 616. 

A motion for transfer lies within the broad discretion of the district court and 

Case 3:13-cv-02741-BAS-RBB Document 137 Filed 12/08/14 Page 2 of 5
 – 3 – 13cv2741 

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 

is determined on an individual basis. See Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 

495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000). In evaluating a motion to transfer venue and in 

determining the proper venue for transfer, district courts generally consider eight 

factors. See Hawkins v. Gerber Products, Inc., 924 F.Supp.2d 1208, 1212-1213 

(S.D. Cal. 2013). The eight factors include: “(1) plaintiff's choice of forum; (2) 

convenience of the parties; (3) convenience of the witnesses; (4) ease of access to 

the evidence; (5) familiarity of each forum with an applicable law; (6) feasibility of 

consolidation with other claims; (7) any local interest in the controversy; and (8) the 

relative court congestion and time of trial in each forum.” Id. at 1213; Williams v. 

Bowman, 157 F.Supp.2d 1103, 1106 (N.D. Cal. 2001); see also Jones, 211 F.3d at 

498-99; Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th 

Cir. 1986). 

For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that this action might have 

been brought in the Northern District of Georgia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, and 

consideration of the factors weighs in favor of transferring this matter to the 

Northern District of Georgia. 

B. Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum/Venue 

It is undisputed that Plaintiff was never a resident of the Southern District of 

California. Deference to a plaintiff’s choice of venue is reduced when the plaintiff 

does not reside in the chosen venue. Williams, 157 F.Supp.2d at 1106. 

Plaintiff’s proffered connection and basis for electing the Southern District of 

California is the IMS-General Conference’s incorporation in California, the related 

existence of an IMS-New Jersey affiliated church in Vista, California, and some 

unidentified personnel in Oceanside, California, but the events that precipitated the 

complaint in this matter largely occurred in the Central District of California where 

Plaintiff was located at the time. However, Plaintiff has since moved to Colorado 

and no longer lives in California thereby lessening California and the Central 

District of California’s interest in the resolution of this dispute. 

Case 3:13-cv-02741-BAS-RBB Document 137 Filed 12/08/14 Page 3 of 5
 – 4 – 13cv2741 

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 

The Court also finds that many of the events complained of in Plaintiff’s 

operative complaint occurred via telephone which, on the whole, largely occurred 

from the corporate headquarters in, and included participants located in, the 

Northern District of Georgia. Significantly, none of the events occurred in the 

Southern District of California. Although IMS-General Conference, IMS-New 

Jersey, and IMS-Texas do business in California, the other corporate defendants do 

not. The other corporate defendants would be subject to liability in the Southern 

District of California solely if Plaintiff could show an identity of interests with the 

other defendants. In any event, the Court finds that neither Plaintiff nor Defendants 

have residence or their principal places of business in the Southern District of 

California. 

C. Convenience of Parties and Witnesses 

Regarding the factors of convenience of the parties and witnesses, the Court 

finds the balance of interests again weigh in favor of the Northern District of 

Georgia. 

While Plaintiff asserts there is no principal place of business for the various 

corporate defendants, the Court finds that the principal places of business for IMSGeneral Conference, IMS-New Jersey, IMS-Georgia, and IMS-Florida, as of today, 

are all in the Northern District of Georgia. The Court further finds that IMS-Texas, 

IMS-Miami, and IMS-Tampa all request transfer to the Northern District of 

Georgia and consent to jurisdiction in that district. Accordingly, the convenience of 

the parties weighs in favor of the Northern District of Georgia. 

The convenience of the witnesses also weighs in favor of the Northern 

District of Georgia. The Court reviewed the prospective witnesses, inclusive of the 

one-hundred and twenty four (124) prospective witnesses identified by Plaintiff in 

his initial disclosures. (See ECF No. 92-12.) The Court finds the majority of 

witnesses are located in Georgia or Florida. Only twelve of the potential witnesses 

are in California and none are in the Southern District of California. In addition, 

Case 3:13-cv-02741-BAS-RBB Document 137 Filed 12/08/14 Page 4 of 5
 – 5 – 13cv2741 

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 

five of the twelve would be testifying about corporate structure only, presumably 

something many other witnesses could cover in their testimony. In addition, as 

noted above, a number, if not the majority, of key witnesses taking part in the 

telephonic meetings at issue in the case were and are located in the Northern 

District of Georgia. 

D. Remaining Factors 

As to the remaining factors generally considered by courts in exercising 

discretion to grant a motion for transfer, the Court finds those factors to be neutral 

or otherwise do not support venue in the Southern District of California. 

II. CONCLUSION & ORDER 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motions to 

transfer venue (ECF Nos. 124, 125, 126) and finds that the Northern District of 

Georgia is the proper venue. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court transfer this 

matter to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 8, 2014 

 

Case 3:13-cv-02741-BAS-RBB Document 137 Filed 12/08/14 Page 5 of 5