Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01639/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01639-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 340
Nature of Suit: Marine Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

Because oral argument will not be of material 1

assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. 

See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 78-230(h).

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

JANET YOUNG and EDWARD

YOUNG,

NO. CIV. S-05-1639 FCD GGH

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

COASTAL ISLAND CHARTERS,

MICHAEL BAUER, and LORI

BAUER,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on defendants Coastal Island

Charters, Michael Bauer and Lori Bauer’s (collectively,

“defendants”) motion for transfer of venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1404(a). Defendants do not challenge the propriety of venue 1

in the Eastern District of California, but argue that the United

States District Court of Alaska is the more convenient forum.

Plaintiffs Janet Young and Edward Young (“plaintiffs”) oppose the

Case 2:05-cv-01639-FCD-GGH Document 19 Filed 12/12/05 Page 1 of 10
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

motion arguing that the balance of factors weigh heavily in their

favor, meriting retention of the case in this district.

For the reasons set forth below, the court DENIES

defendants’ motion. While the operative facts of the incident

occurred in Alaska, plaintiffs’ choice of forum should be

afforded substantial deference since defendants personally

solicited plaintiffs’ business in this district on numerous

occasions and the contract forming the basis of the parties’

relationship was entered into here.

BACKGROUND

This is an action for negligence by common carrier,

negligence and loss of consortium filed by plaintiffs against

defendant Coastal Island Charters (“Coastal”) and its owners

defendants Michael and Lori Bauer (the “Bauers”). (Compl., filed

Aug. 16, 2005.) The premise of Coastal’s business is to share

the Bauers’ love of fishing and exploring the beautiful Southeast

Alaska. (L. Bauer Decl., filed Oct. 25, 2005, ¶ 3.)

In January 1998, plaintiffs first met the Bauers at the

Sportsman’s Expo in San Mateo, California. The Bauers were

soliciting for fishing trips they ran in Alaska. Plaintiffs

agreed to purchase a trip and went on the trip with the Bauers in

the summer of 1998. (J. Young Decl., filed Nov. 15, 2005, ¶ 2.)

Thereafter, on a number of occasions between 1998 and 2004,

plaintiffs personally met with the Bauers at the Sportsman’s Expo

in either San Mateo or Sacramento, California. Again, on these

occasions, the Bauers were soliciting business for their fishing

trips. Plaintiffs attest that at least once every year between

1998 and 2004, and probably more, the Bauers solicited business

Case 2:05-cv-01639-FCD-GGH Document 19 Filed 12/12/05 Page 2 of 10
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 other passengers onboard included Eddie Young, 2

plaintiffs’ son, and Dennis Meeno, a business associate of

plaintiffs.

3

at a Sportsman’s Expo in Northern California. (Id. at ¶ 3.)

On January 18, 2004, plaintiffs again met the Bauers at the

Sportsman’s Expo in Sacramento and contracted for a five-day

fishing trip for the summer. That day, plaintiffs wrote a

$2,000.00 check to the Bauers as a deposit for the trip. (Id. at

¶ 4.)

While on the trip, on June 18, 2004, plaintiff Janet Young

was in the dining/main room of the Bauers’ boat. At that time, 2

the only other person in the room was the Bauers’ employee, Ms.

Kelly. Ms. Kelly opened a hatch in the floor while plaintiff’s

back was turned. Plaintiff alleges Ms. Kelley did not say or do

anything to warn her of the hazard. When plaintiff turned back

around, she fell through the open hatch and shattered her ankle. 

(Id. at ¶ 5.)

According to defendants, Ms. Kelly was preparing to store

the morning catch in a freezer below the main salon deck. (L.

Bauer Decl., ¶ 18.) As is the crew’s custom and practice,

alleges defendants, Ms. Kelly announced aloud, “I’m opening the

hatch,” then opened the hatch while plaintiff was standing a

short distance away. (Id. at ¶ 19.) Plaintiff walked into the

open hatch and injured her right ankle. (Id. at ¶ 20.)

The boat returned to Sitka, Alaska, approximately 5 hours

away, in order to seek medical treatment for plaintiff’s ankle. 

(Id. at ¶ 21.) Once at the dock, while the paramedics and EMTs

from Sitka were seeing to plaintiff, defendants allege plaintiff

Case 2:05-cv-01639-FCD-GGH Document 19 Filed 12/12/05 Page 3 of 10
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

4

stated to the medical personnel that the incident was “nobody’s

fault” and it was clearly an accident. (Defs.’ Counsel’s Decl.,

filed Oct. 25, 2005, ¶ 3.)

Plaintiff was then transported to the Sitka Medical Center

by ambulance where she was seen by Dr. John Totten, the on-call

surgeon. (L. Bauer Decl., ¶ 24.) Dr. Totten informed plaintiff

that he was capable of performing the surgery on plaintiff’s

foot. (Id. at ¶ 25.) He also discussed with plaintiff whether

he believed it was advisable and necessary to have plaintiff

transported by Medivac to a hospital in California. (Id.) At

plaintiff Edward Young’s request, a Medivac plane was summoned,

and Janet Young was air-lifted to a medical facility in

Sacramento. (Id. at ¶ 27.)

The Bauers have lived full-time in Alaska since 1976. 

Besides the Bauers, Coastal’s only other crew member at the time

of the incident was Ms. Kelly, a twenty-eight year old deckhand. 

(Id. at ¶ 5.) Ms. Kelly lives in Alaska from June through

September and in Eatonville, Washington from October through May

where she serves as a care provider for disabled individuals. 

(Id. at ¶ 6.)

Coastal is a business organized under the laws of the State

of Alaska with its principal executive office, located for the

last eleven years, in Wrangell, Alaska. (Id. at ¶s 7-8.) 

Coastal has never had any operations, office or telephone number

in California. (Id. at ¶ 9.) The boat at issue, the MV

Huntress, is a 60-foot vessel owned by the Bauers and regularly

used during the months of May through September to charter

fishing trips in the waters off of the coast of Alaska. (Id. at

Case 2:05-cv-01639-FCD-GGH Document 19 Filed 12/12/05 Page 4 of 10
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

5

¶ 10.) Since the Bauers purchase of the MV Huntress, it has only

been registered and documented in the State of Alaska. (Id. at ¶

11.) The money earned from fishing charters during the months of

May to September is the Bauers’ only source of income. (Id. at ¶

13.)

STANDARD

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court may “for the

convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice

. . . transfer any civil action to any other district where it

might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). A defendant

moving to transfer venue under section 1404(a) must therefore

satisfy both of the following requirements: (1) the transferee

district is one in which the action might have been brought

originally; and (2) transfer will enhance the convenience of the

parties and witnesses, and is in the interests of justice. See

Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964).

In considering the second requirement, the court evaluates

the following:

(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 costs of litigation in the two forums, (7)

the availability of complusory process to compel

attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses, and

(8) ease of access to sources of proof.

Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9 Cir. th

2000).

Case 2:05-cv-01639-FCD-GGH Document 19 Filed 12/12/05 Page 5 of 10
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

6

ANALYSIS

Plaintiffs do not dispute that this action properly could

have been brought in the United States District Court of Alaska

since defendants reside there. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). Thus, the

only question before the court is whether transfer to Alaska will

serve “the convenience of [the] parties and witnesses” and will

promote the interest[s] of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

Considering the above facts in light of the factors

described in Jones, the court finds defendants have failed to

demonstrate that transfer is warranted:

First, the location of the relevant agreement favors

litigation in this court. Plaintiffs entered a contact with the

Bauers for the June 2004 fishing trip in Sacramento, California. 

The contract was made as a result of the Bauers’ solicitation of

business in this district, through their personal appearance at

the Sportsman’s Expo in Sacramento. Moreover, the Bauers do not

dispute plaintiffs’ testimony that they met the Bauers on

numerous occasions between 1998 and 2004 in Northern California,

when the Bauers were soliciting business through various

Sportsman’s Expos. Indeed, despite plaintiffs’ testimony, the

Bauers have not provided the court with any specific information

regarding their solicitation of business in California, including

locations and frequency.

Second, this court is the most familiar with the governing

law--California negligence law. (Compl. at ¶ 12 [regrading

negligence by a common carrier as defined by Cal. Civ. Code §

2186 et seq.].) Moreover, were the case to be transferred to

Alaska, the Alaska court would be bound to apply California law. 

Case 2:05-cv-01639-FCD-GGH Document 19 Filed 12/12/05 Page 6 of 10
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

7

Van Dusen, 376 U.S. at 637-39 (when transfer is granted under 

§ 1404(a), the transferee court in a diversity action must apply

the law of the state in which the action was originally filed). 

Third, where a plaintiff’s choice of forum is his place of

residence, as in this case, a defendant must make a “strong

showing of inconvenience to warrant upsetting the plaintiff’s

choice of forum.” Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co.,

805 F.2d 834, 843 (9 Cir. 1986). Here, defendants have not th

done so. While they maintain that participating in litigation in

this district would be detrimental to their “small” business,

plaintiffs’ unrebutted testimony of the Bauers’ personal presence

in this district, and within Northern California generally, to

solicit business belies defendants’ contentions. Because it

appears that defendants regularly conduct business in this

district to recruit clients, they cannot persuasively argue that

it would be a detriment to their business to be a party to

litigation in this district. Indeed, a Northern California venue

would seem expected given the extent and frequency of defendants’

contacts with Northern California.

Additionally, defendants have not shown that the convenience

of the relevant non-party witnesses favors Alaska. Defendants

concede that plaintiffs’ son and business associate (both present

on the trip) and plaintiff’s surgeon, treating physician and

other healthcare providers reside in California. Yet, defendants

argue that, more importantly, Ms. Kelly, the central person

involved in the incident, the two Sitka EMTs, whom defendants

allege overheard plaintiff state the incident was “nobody’s

fault,” Dr. Trotten, and the “Medivac pilot” live in Alaska. 

Case 2:05-cv-01639-FCD-GGH Document 19 Filed 12/12/05 Page 7 of 10
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 considers herein plaintiffs’ objections only 3

as they pertain to facts relevant to the court’s decision.

8

Defendants’ argument, however, is unavailing because it misstates

the facts and/or emphasizes witnesses who are not central to this

case. Regarding Ms. Kelly, by defendants’ own admission, she

lives only part-time in Alaska; outside of the fishing season

(May to September), she lives in the State of Washington. Thus,

her residence is of limited importance in resolving the dispute

over convenience between California and Alaska. As to plaintiff

Janet Young’s alleged statement to the Sitka EMTs, defendants

have not provided admissible testimony on this issue, and

therefore the court does not consider it in ruling on the motion. 

Cochran v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 58 F. Supp. 2d 1113, 1119 (C.D.

Cal. 1998) (“the moving party must demonstrate, through

affidavits or declarations containing admissible evidence, who

the key witnesses will be and what their testimony will generally

include”) (emphasis added.) Finally, regarding Dr. Totten and 3

the unnamed “Medivac pilot,” their involvement in this case is

minimal, and as such, the convenience of these witnesses does not

weigh heavily in the analysis.

In sum, on balance, the majority of the critical non-party

witnesses reside in California, rendering this factor in favor of

plaintiffs. Taken in combination with plaintiffs’ choice of this

forum and defendants’ contacts with the forum, particularly in

this district, the court finds that this factor weighs

considerably in favor of retention of this case in this district.

Fourth, regarding the relevant costs, because of the

location of the majority of witnesses, and considering the

Case 2:05-cv-01639-FCD-GGH Document 19 Filed 12/12/05 Page 8 of 10
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

9

Bauers’ frequent business travels to California, it would likely

be more costly to litigate this case in Alaska. The court is

mindful of the fact that the subject boat is located in Alaska

and that part of the discovery in this matter may require travel

to Alaska to view and inspect the boat. However, that fact

alone, when considered on balance with the other issues discussed

herein, does not merit transfer of venue.

Finally, for similar reasons, defendants’ showing with

regard to access to sources of proof is also unavailing. 

Initially, the court notes that defendants concede that the

location of the documentary evidence in this case does not

significantly favor either forum; some of the relevant

documentary evidence is in Alaska, including documents regarding

the MV Huntress itself and Coastal’s business, while other

documentary evidence is in California, including plaintiff’s

medical records. Thus, there is no basis to assume that it would

be any more convenient or less burdensome to transport the

relevant documents to Alaska rather than to California. 

Setting aside the documentary evidence, defendants solely

base their argument on the need for access to the MV Huntress

itself, both during the course of discovery and at trial (for

review by the jury). As stated above, while inspection of the

boat may be necessary by the parties, their attorneys, and

experts during discovery, this fact alone does not warrant a

transfer of venue. As to any inspection by the jury at trial,

defendants have not demonstrated why diagrams, pictures, models,

reports, and records could not provide ample evidence for the

trier of fact; moreover, absent extraordinary circumstances, such

Case 2:05-cv-01639-FCD-GGH Document 19 Filed 12/12/05 Page 9 of 10
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

10

a request for an actual inspection of the boat by the jury would

likely be denied by a court, be it in Alaska or California.

Therefore, for all of the above reasons, the court DENIES

defendants’ motion to transfer venue because defendants have not

met their burden to show that the convenience of witnesses and

interests of justice warrant transfer of this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 DATED: December 12, 2005

 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01639-FCD-GGH Document 19 Filed 12/12/05 Page 10 of 10