Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00398/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00398-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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 

LUCY ATAYDE,

Plaintiff,

v.

NAPA STATE HOSPITAL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-00038-TEH 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTIONS TO TRANSFER VENUE

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Napa State Hospital and related 

parties’ motion to dismiss or transfer venue and Defendant California Forensic Medical 

Group and related parties’ motion to transfer venue. Having carefully considered the 

parties’ written arguments, the Court finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral 

argument. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons stated below, the Court hereby GRANTS 

Defendants’ motions.

BACKGROUND 

This action arises from the death of Richard Ramirez, who committed suicide while 

in custody at the John Latorraca Correctional Facility (“JLCF”) in Merced, California. Mr. 

Ramirez was a twenty-seven year old man who had been diagnosed with a personality 

disorder and psychotic disorder. Compl. ¶ 25 (Docket No. 1). He was arrested on August 

23, 2014, and held as a pretrial detainee at JLCF. Id. ¶ 26. While in custody, Mr. Ramirez 

attempted suicide multiple times, often in the presence of others. Id. ¶¶ 64; 70; 71. On 

October 9, 2014, Mr. Ramirez was “deemed appropriate for admission to Napa State 

Hospital,” according to a letter from Defendant Dana White, R.N., but was not transferred 

to the hospital. Id. ¶ 74. On October 24, 2014, the County of Merced Superior Court 

issued an order finding that Mr. Ramirez was mentally incompetent to stand trial, ordering 

that Mr. Ramirez be committed to Napa State Hospital or another appropriate facility, 

Case 1:16-cv-00398-KES-SAB Document 40 Filed 03/21/16 Page 1 of 7
United States District Court

Northern District of California

2

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

ordering the Sheriff of Merced County to deliver Mr. Ramirez to the hospital, and 

authorizing the hospital to involuntarily administer antipsychotic medication as prescribed. 

Commitment Order at 2-3, Ex. A to Compl. (Docket No. 1-1). Mr. Ramirez was never 

transferred to any hospital, and on December 15, 2014, he committed suicide in a 

segregated cell at JLCF. Compl. ¶¶ 100, 101. 

On January 5, 2016, Lucy Atayde (“Plaintiff”), Mr. Ramirez’s mother, filed her

complaint in this Court alleging violations under federal and state law relating to 

Defendants’ alleged deliberate indifference to Mr. Ramirez’s medical needs. Id. at 1. On 

February 2, 2016, Defendants Napa State Hospital, California Department of State 

Hospitals (“CDSH”), CDSH Director Molly Matteucci, and Dana White, R.N. 

(collectively “State Defendants”) moved to dismiss the Complaint or transfer venue to the 

Eastern District of California. Docket No. 12. On February 8, 2016, Defendants 

California Forensic Medical Group (“CFMG”), Taylor Fithian, M.D., Heather Goode, 

M.D., Sean Ryan, R.N., Deborah Mandujano, R.N., Corina Denning, R.N. (collectively 

“CFMG Defendants”), County of Merced, former Sheriff Tom Cavallero, and Under 

Sheriff Jason Goins (collectively “County Defendants”) moved to transfer venue, also to 

the Eastern District. Docket No. 25. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

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

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

been brought . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In order to transfer venue, a court “must 

therefore make two findings: first, that the transferee court is one where the action ‘might 

have been brought,’ and second, that the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the 

interest of justice favor transfer.” Minh Hong v. Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC, No. 12-CV1756-TEH, 2012 WL 5077066, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2012) (citation omitted). 

“The convenience of witnesses is often the most important factor considered by the 

court” when deciding a motion to transfer. Trujillo v. GT USA, Inc., No. 09-CV-5179-

Case 1:16-cv-00398-KES-SAB Document 40 Filed 03/21/16 Page 2 of 7
United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

MMC, 2010 WL 809505, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2010). In evaluating the convenience of 

the parties and witnesses, courts may consider:

(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). Additional factors 

include the feasibility of consolidation of other claims and the relative congestion of the 

courts. Barnes & Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp., 823 F. Supp. 2d 980, 993 (N.D. Cal. 2011). A 

motion to transfer lies within the broad discretion of the district court, and must be 

determined on an individualized basis. Jones, 211 F.3d at 498. The party seeking to 

transfer bears the burden of persuasion. See Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. 

Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979). 

DISCUSSION 

The parties do not dispute that this action “might have been brought” in the Eastern 

District. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Thus, it is Defendants’ burden to demonstrate that the 

convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interest of justice favor a transfer of 

venue. Id. Many of the factors that the Court may weigh in considering a motion to 

transfer venue are either neutral or insignificant in this case – for example, there are no 

governing agreements, both forums are familiar with the governing law, and most sources 

of proof would be documents which can be easily accessed from any location 

electronically. The most salient factors in the instant case are the plaintiff’s choice of 

forum, relevant contacts with the respective forums, costs of litigation, and court 

congestion. These factors are discussed in turn below. 

Case 1:16-cv-00398-KES-SAB Document 40 Filed 03/21/16 Page 3 of 7
United States District Court

Northern District of California

4

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

I. DEFENDANTS SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATE THAT THE 

CONVENIENCE OF THE PARTIES AND WITNESSES AND THE 

INTERESTS OF JUSTICE FAVOR TRANSFER 

A. Plaintiff’s choice of forum

 Plaintiff argues that her choice of forum should be given “substantial” weight. 

Opp’n to State Mot. at 10. Indeed, a plaintiff’s choice of forum is ordinarily afforded 

deference, as courts assume that plaintiffs choose to file in the most convenient court. See 

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

However, courts afford a plaintiff’s choice of forum less deference where, as here, the 

plaintiff does not reside in the district in which she filed. See Gemini Capital Grp., Inc. v. 

Yap Fishing Corp., 150 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff listed her county of 

residence on her Complaint as Merced. Civil Cover Sheet (Docket No. 1-2). 

 Plaintiff does not deny the fact that she does not reside in the Northern District of 

California; rather, she states that she “filed suit here because significant acts and omissions 

leading to her son’s death occurred in Napa.” Opp’n to State Mot. at 10. However, the 

Court is not persuaded that “significant acts and omissions” occurred in the Northern 

District; in fact, the Court finds otherwise. In Anderson v. County of Siskiyou – a case with 

alarmingly similar facts – the plaintiff’s choice of forum was found to be “undermined by 

the minimal nexus between [the Northern District of California] and the events that form 

the basis of the action.” No. 10-CV-1428-SBA, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41023, at *7 (N.D. 

Cal. Jan. 11, 2011). Notably, in Anderson, the plaintiff had received treatment at the Napa 

State Hospital, and his suicide occurred after he was returned to the Siskiyou County Jail. 

Id. at *3. Here, Mr. Ramirez was never transferred to, nor received any in-person 

treatment from, the Napa State Hospital. 

The core allegations of the Complaint center on Mr. Ramirez’s treatment, and 

eventual suicide, while in custody at JLCF. Plaintiff contends that “incompetent remote 

telepsychiatry occurred with the physicians in Monterey,” but Plaintiff cites no authority 

Case 1:16-cv-00398-KES-SAB Document 40 Filed 03/21/16 Page 4 of 7
United States District Court

Northern District of California

5

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

for the proposition that a phone call between parties residing in two different districts 

necessarily occurs in one district or the other. Opp’n to State Mot. at 10. 

 For these reasons, the Court finds that the majority of the salient events forming the 

basis for Plaintiff’s Complaint transpired in Merced County, which lies in the Eastern 

District. Taking this into account as well as Plaintiff’s residence in the Eastern District, 

the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s choice of forum is entitled to minimal deference.

B. Contacts with the respective forums

 In analyzing which district is a more convenient forum for the parties and witnesses, 

courts consider contacts with the respective forums, and therefore this Court must again 

highlight the fact that the majority of the major events leading up to Mr. Ramirez’s suicide 

occurred in Merced County – and more specifically, JLCF. Compare Compl. ¶¶ 25-29, 

39-42, 44-48, 50-59, 61, 63-67, 70-73, 76-77, 87-95, 97-101 (concerning Mr. Ramirez’s 

treatment at JLCF), with ¶¶ 38, 43, 49, 68-69, 75 (concerning Mr. Ramirez’s 

telepsychiatry). Additionally, Plaintiff and the majority of the Defendants reside in the 

Eastern District. Therefore, the number of contacts with the Eastern District overwhelm 

those in the Northern District.

CFMG Defendants identify twelve additional witnesses who reside in the Eastern 

District and appear to have relevant information for Plaintiffs’ claims. See Varini Decl. 

(identifying employees of JLCF, first responders to Mr. Ramirez’s suicide, officers who 

investigated Mr. Ramirez’s death, and a doctor who performed the autopsy, among others) 

(Docket No. 25-1). The Court notes that Plaintiff disputes the importance of the testimony 

of the CFMG Defendants’ listed witnesses. However, tellingly, Plaintiff has failed to 

identify any non-party witnesses who reside in the Northern District, and the only 

witnesses who do reside in this district are the State Defendants, who now move to transfer 

the case to the Eastern District. While Defendants have not specifically identified the 

testimony of the witnesses in the Eastern District and its relevance, the Court nonetheless 

finds that Defendants have made a strong showing that the nexus of the events occurred in 

the Eastern District; thus, logically the majority of witnesses will be located there. For 

Case 1:16-cv-00398-KES-SAB Document 40 Filed 03/21/16 Page 5 of 7
United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

these reasons, the Court finds that the number of contacts with the Eastern District favors 

transfer. 

C. Costs of litigation 

 Plaintiff contends that travelling to the Eastern District will impose greater costs on 

her, due to her attorneys’ location in the Northern District. Pl.’s Opp’n to CFMG Mot. at 

23. However, the convenience of counsel is not a relevant factor under §1404(a). 

Pralinsky v. Mutual of Omaha Ins., No. 08-CV-3191-MHP, 2008 WL 4532563, at *2 

(N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2008). To the extent that Plaintiff attempts to use her counsel’s costs as 

a proxy for her costs, the argument is weakened by the contingency fee nature of this case. 

Defendants point out that Plaintiff resides in the Eastern District, and Plaintiff has not 

responded with any additional evidence other than her attorneys’ travel expenses that 

would make litigation in the Northern District more costly than the Eastern District. 

Therefore, the costs of litigation factor weighs in favor of transfer. 

D. Court congestion

Finally, Plaintiff contends that the congestion of the Courts in the Eastern District 

would subject Plaintiff to undue delay and therefore deny Plaintiff justice. Opp’n to 

CFMG Mot. at 22. While Court congestion is a factor courts may consider in ruling on a 

motion to transfer, courts do not always afford the factor great weight, especially if other 

factors indicate that a case should be transferred. See, e.g., Bergman v. Brainin, 512 F. 

Supp. 972, 975 (D. Del. 1981). Here, the lighter caseload per judge in this district is the 

strongest factor against transfer, but Defendants have demonstrated that the factors 

outlined above strongly favor transfer. Furthermore, the interests of justice weigh in favor 

of transfer when the Court considers which forum, congestion aside, has a greater interest 

in resolving the litigation. The JLCF is located in the Eastern District of California; thus, it 

is in the Eastern District’s interest to determine whether the jail acts with deliberate 

indifference to the safety of its prisoners or consciously disregards orders from Superior 

Courts within the Eastern District. 

Case 1:16-cv-00398-KES-SAB Document 40 Filed 03/21/16 Page 6 of 7
United States District Court

Northern District of California

7

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

For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that convenience of the parties and the 

witnesses and the interests of justice outweigh Plaintiff’s choice of forum such that the 

Court finds the case must be transferred to the Eastern District of California. The Court 

accordingly GRANTS Defendants’ motions to transfer venue.1

CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that Defendants have met their burden 

of persuasion by demonstrating that the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the 

interests of justice outweigh the deference accorded to Plaintiff’s choice of forum. For 

these reasons, Defendants’ motions to transfer are hereby GRANTED. The Clerk shall 

transfer the instant action to the Eastern District of California, and shall terminate any 

pending dates and deadlines. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 03/21/16 _____________________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge

 

1 As the Court has granted the motions to transfer, it need not reach the State 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Case 1:16-cv-00398-KES-SAB Document 40 Filed 03/21/16 Page 7 of 7