Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04999/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04999-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

1

Case No.: 5:14-cv-04999-EJD

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JOE ARROYO, individually and on behalf 

of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

TP-LINK USA CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:14-cv-04999-EJD 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO TRANSFER

Re: Dkt. No. 50

In this putative class action initiated by Plaintiff Joe Arroyo (“Plaintiff”), presently before 

the Court is Defendant TP-Link USA Corporation (“TP-Link USA”) and TP-Link Technologies 

Co., Ltd.’s (“TP-Link Tech”) (collectively “Defendants”) Motion to Transfer the case to the 

United States District Court for the Central District of California. See Docket Item No. 50. 

Plaintiff has filed written opposition to the motion.

Federal jurisdiction arises pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The Court finds this matter 

suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). The hearing 

scheduled for February 18, 2016 is therefore VACATED. Having carefully considered the 

pleadings filed by the parties, the Court finds, concludes and orders as follows:

1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a), “a district court may transfer any civil action to any 

other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which 

all parties have consented” if such a transfer is convenient to the parties and witnesses. The 

purpose of § 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.” Van Dusen v. 

Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964). 

Case 5:14-cv-04999-EJD Document 93 Filed 02/11/16 Page 1 of 7
2

Case No.: 5:14-cv-04999-EJD

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER

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

2. To determine whether transfer is appropriate, the court first examines whether the 

action could have been brought in the district to which transfer is sought. See Hatch v. Reliance 

Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 409, 414 (9th Cir. 1985) (“In determining whether an action might have been 

brought in a district, the court looks to whether the action initially could have been commenced in 

that district.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). If the proposed district is a viable 

one, the court then goes through an “individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience 

and fairness.” Van Dusen, 376 U.S. at 622. 

3. In addition to the convenience considerations enumerated by § 1404(a), the Ninth 

Circuit has identified other fairness factors that should be weighed by the court when considering 

a transfer: “(1) the location where the relevant agreements were negotiated and executed, (2) the 

state that is most familiar with the governing law, (3) the plaintiff’s choice of forum, (4) the 

respective parties’ contacts with the forum, (5) the contacts relating to the plaintiff’s cause of 

action in the chosen forum, (6) the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums, (7) the 

availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses, and (8) 

the ease of access to sources of proof.” Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99

(9th Cir. 2000). 

4. “No single factor is dispositive, and a district court has broad discretion to 

adjudicate motions for transfer on a case-by-case basis.” Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. 

Kempthorne, No. 08-1339, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84978, at *8, 2008 WL 4543043 (N.D. Cal. 

Oct. 10, 2008) (citing Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988); Sparling v. 

Hoffman Constr. Co., Inc., 864 F.2d 635, 639 (9th Cir. 1988)). A transfer may not be appropriate 

under § 1404(a) if it “would merely shift rather than eliminate the inconvenience.” Decker Coal 

Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). The party moving for 

transfer of a case bears the burden of demonstrating transfer is appropriate. See Commodity 

Futures Trading Comm’n v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979)), opinion modified, 828 

F.2d 1445 (9th Cir. 1987).

5. A civil action may be brought in “a judicial district in which any defendant resides” 

Case 5:14-cv-04999-EJD Document 93 Filed 02/11/16 Page 2 of 7
3

Case No.: 5:14-cv-04999-EJD

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER

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

or “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim 

occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (2). For venue purposes, a defendant corporation shall be 

deemed to reside “in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court’s personal 

jurisdiction,” and if the defendant does not reside in the United States, the defendant “may be sued 

in any judicial district”). 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2), (c)(3). 

6. As to whether this action could have been brought in the Central District of 

California, the Court observes that TP-Link USA - which has been a named defendant since the 

commencement of this action - is a California corporation with its principal place of business in 

San Dimas, a city located within the Central District. First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶ 8, Dkt. 

No. 71. The other current defendant, TP-Link Tech, is a corporation incorporated in the People’s 

Republic of China with its principal place of business in Nanshan, Shenzhen, China. Id. ¶ 9.

Additionally, Defendants demonstrated, and many of Plaintiff’s allegations similarly indicate, that 

a majority of the relevant events in this case took place in the Central District.1 Thus, according to 

subsections (b) and (c) of § 1391, venue would be proper in the transferee district and Defendants 

have met their burden as to this threshold inquiry.

2

7. Looking next to which forum is more convenient for the parties and relevant 

witnesses, it is apparent that the Central District is significantly more convenient for TP-Link 

USA, as well as a majority of Defendants’ employees, corporate witnesses, and relevant third-

 

1

For example, Plaintiff alleges that he purchased the PowerLine adapter at issue from a third-party 

website, Newegg.com, which is located in Los Angeles, CA. See Def. Mot. to Transfer (“Mot.”), 

Dkt. No. 50; FAC ¶ 55; Pl. Opp. to Mot. (“Opp.”) at 8, Dkt. No 57. Plaintiff also alleges that the 

purportedly misleading advertising was created by “TP-Link USA’s sales and marketing 

department located in or around Los Angeles.” See Pl. Opp. to Def. Mot. to Dismiss (“MTD”), 

Dkt. No. 30. 

2 Notably, another entity located within the Northern District of California, namely TP-Link 

Research Institute USA Corporation (“TPRI”), was named as a defendant in the original version of 

the complaint. Its location, however, is no moment to the venue analysis given the location of the 

other originally-named defendant, TP-Link USA, and the fact that a majority of relevant events 

occurred within the Central District of California. Moreover, claims against TPRI were not 

reasserted in the FAC, thereby essentially dismissing it from this case. 

Case 5:14-cv-04999-EJD Document 93 Filed 02/11/16 Page 3 of 7
4

Case No.: 5:14-cv-04999-EJD

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER

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

party witnesses, most of whom are residents of that district.

3

 See Mot. at 4-5. In contrast, Plaintiff 

is a resident of Florida and has alleged no facts suggesting that the Northern District is any more 

convenient for him than the Central District. Instead, Plaintiff asserts a general contention that 

Defendants “do significant business with vendors and customers in [the Northern District]” and 

“have employees and physical facilities located here.” Opp. at 2-3, 14.

4

 In addition, Plaintiff has 

recently requested the Court consider selected excerpts from the deposition testimony of Mr. 

Lewis Wu in support of his contention that “Defendant did have employees and operations located 

in [the Northern] District.” Pl. Motion for Leave to Supplement Opposition to TP-Link USA’s 

Motion to Transfer (“Supp. Opp.”) at 1, Dkt. No. 92 (emphasis in original).

5 Mr. Wu’s testimony 

identifies a handful of individuals employed by Defendants who work, or previously worked, in 

the Northern District. See Ex. A to Supp. Opp. 

While this evidence is suggestive of Defendants’ contacts with the forum, it is 

unpersuasive as to the question of convenience. Plaintiff’s pleadings generally fail to indicate the

way these individuals are relevant witnesses to the litigation or why they will be inconvenienced 

by a transfer. In contrast, Defendants identify four entities that have already served with 

subpoenas and are likely to play a relevant role in the case, all of which are residents of – or

located substantially closer to – the Central District. See Mot. at 8-9; Def. Reply in Support of 

Mot. to Transfer (“Reply”) at 7-8.6 In sum, Defendants have convincingly shown that the Central 

 

3

TP-Link Tech is located in China, therefore the relative difference in convenience between the 

Northern District and the Central District of California is presumably negligible for this 

Defendant. See Opp. at 2. 

4 Defendants’ Motion to Strike Paragraphs 3, 16 and 17 and Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Alicia 

Hwang [Dkt. 57-1], filed in support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to transfer, is hereby DENIED.

5

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Supplement Opposition to TP-Link USA’s Motion to Transfer 

Venue is hereby GRANTED. The Court acknowledges and takes note of Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s 

Motion and, to the extent the Court deems appropriate, has considered the information provided 

therein for the purposes of the instant motion. Exhibit A is hereby entered and attached to 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to TP-link USA’s Motion to Transfer Venue, Docket Number 57.

6

Plaintiff also makes the argument that, like TP-Link Tech in China, several non-parties reside 

outside of California entirely and will therefore be forced to travel regardless. Opp. at 17. While 

this may be true, it has no effect on the analysis. The fact that some parties or witnesses will be 

Case 5:14-cv-04999-EJD Document 93 Filed 02/11/16 Page 4 of 7
5

Case No.: 5:14-cv-04999-EJD

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER

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

District would be a considerably more convenient forum for them and other potentially relevant 

third-party witnesses, while the impact upon Plaintiff and out of state witnesses will be minimal or 

unchanged. 

8. As to the Jones fairness factors, the first and second factors are neutral, as there are 

no negotiated agreements relevant to this action and both forums are equally familiar with the 

governing law. 

9. The third factor, Plaintiff’s choice of this district, generally favors maintaining the 

case here. But while this factor can sometimes be a weighty one under other circumstances, it is 

afforded less deference when, as here, the action is brought as a class action on behalf of a 

representative class. Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Sarinana v. DS 

Waters of Am., Inc., No. C-13-0905 EMC, 2013 WL 3456687, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2013) 

(explaining that “the weight accorded to the plaintiff’s choice [of venue] is decreased in cases 

where the action is brought as a class action.”). Moreover, “a plaintiff’s choice is also given less 

deference when the plaintiff resides outside of the chosen forum.” Brown v. Abercrombie & Fitch 

Co., No. 4:13–CV–05205 YGR, 2014 WL 715082, at *3 (N.D.Cal. Feb. 14, 2014); see also

Gemini Capital Grp., Inc. v. Yap Fishing Corp., 150 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir.1998) (holding that 

the district court correctly afforded less deference to the plaintiff’s choice of Hawaii as a forum

where no plaintiff was a resident of Hawaii). Accordingly, the Court finds that the Plaintiff’s 

choice of forum here weighs only slightly, if at all, against transfer in this case. 

10. The remaining factors generally weigh in favor of transfer. The fourth and fifth 

factors relate to the parties’ contacts with the forum. Here, while Plaintiff has succeeded in 

demonstrating that Defendants have some contact with the Northern District, Plaintiff’s showing is 

insufficient to outweigh Defendants’ significantly greater contacts with the Central District. 

Plaintiff on the other hand had minimal contact with either forum; Plaintiff is a Florida resident 

who purchased Defendants’ AV500 PowerLine adapter from an online retailer (NewEgg.com).

 

equally inconvenienced by either forum has no bearing on the § 1404 convenience considerations. 

Case 5:14-cv-04999-EJD Document 93 Filed 02/11/16 Page 5 of 7
6

Case No.: 5:14-cv-04999-EJD

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER

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

FAC ¶ 55. NewEgg.com is a resident of City of Industry, California, a suburb located in the 

Central District. 

11. The sixth, seventh, and eighth factors involve questions of efficiency: the relative 

cost differences between the forums, the ability to compel non-party witnesses, and the ease of 

access to evidence. Defendants again demonstrate that litigation efficiency tends to favor the 

Central District. Plaintiff argues that a majority of relevant evidence is located in China and other 

places outside California, but fails to make any showing that relevant evidence is likely to be 

found here. On the other hand, Defendants allege specific facts indicating that third-party 

witnesses such as NewEgg.com, as well as “documents related to product information, operations, 

importation, distribution, marketing or sales of the product-at-issue are located at or near TP-Link 

USA’s San Dimas headquarters.” Mot. at 4-5. Additionally, it seems few if any salient witnesses 

reside in this district, while a majority of employees and multiple potential third-party witnesses 

reside in the Central District. Thus, while Plaintiff’s position on witnesses and evidence is largely 

neutral as to either forum, the facts alleged by Defendants favor transfer. 

12. Finally, Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ motion is untimely and, after “almost a 

year of litigation,” “[a] transfer at this late stage would not serve the interest of justice.” Opp. at 

10-11. The Court is unpersuaded by Plaintiff’s claim that the instant motion is untimely and 

Defendants already “had countless opportunities” to move for transfer. See Opp. at 11-12. 

Indeed, the circumstances appear to be quite the opposite. Defendants’ motion immediately 

followed, and is thus interpreted as a timely response to, the dismissal of the only party to this 

action with ties to the Northern District.7 As Defendants aptly point out, because “TPRI is 

headquartered in the Northern District, TP-Link USA could not meaningfully seek transfer of this 

 

7 As previously indicated, the Court dismissed TPRI from the action on September 29, 2015, and 

granted Plaintiff leave to amend. Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss 

(“Sep. Order”) at 10, Dkt. No. 47. On October 16, 2015, rather than amending the Complaint with 

respect to TPRI, Plaintiff requested leave to add TP-Link Tech as a defendant on the grounds that 

it was “the more proper party-defendant.” Dkt. No. 48. On October 21, 2015, and only after 

TPRI was decidedly no longer involved in this action, Defendants filed the present motion to 

transfer. See Dkt. No. 50. 

Case 5:14-cv-04999-EJD Document 93 Filed 02/11/16 Page 6 of 7
7

Case No.: 5:14-cv-04999-EJD

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER

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

action until TPRI was dismissed.” Reply at 3. Plaintiff’s insinuation that Defendants should have 

done so anyway is nonsensical. See Opp. at 12, n. 9. It would be both unreasonable and 

inefficient to require defendants to make meritless transfer motions before the circumstances so 

warrant. 

As to the potential for further delay after a year’s worth of litigation in this district, the 

Court is also unpersuaded. While many courts have looked to the time already spent litigating in 

one district and deny transfer based on the likelihood that it would lead to delay,

8

this is not the 

case here. As Plaintiff’s allegations make clear, discovery in this case is still very much ongoing. 

See Opp. at 6-9; Supp. Opp. at 1. Additionally, no summary judgement motions have been filed 

and no trial date has been set. The Court is therefore confident that transfer in this case will not 

cause substantial delay. 

On balance, the convenience and fairness considerations applicable to an analysis under 

§ 1404(a) weigh in favor of transferring this action to the Central District. Accordingly, 

Defendants’ Motion to Transfer is GRANTED. The Clerk shall TRANSFER this case to the 

United States District Court for the Central District of California and close this court’s file.

All other pending matters are TERMINATED and should be re-filed and re-noticed before 

the newly assigned district judge. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

 

8

See Moore v. Telfon Communications Corp., 589 F.2d 959, 968 (9th Cir.1978) (finding that the 

convenience of witnesses was outweighed by the consideration of pending litigation); Allen v. 

Scribner, 812 F.2d 426, 436-37 (9th Cir.) amended, 828 F.2d 1445 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding that 

because transfer “undoubtedly would have led to delay, the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying Allen’s motion notwithstanding possible inconvenience to the witnesses.”).

Case 5:14-cv-04999-EJD Document 93 Filed 02/11/16 Page 7 of 7