Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02818/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02818-3/pdf.json

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

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN SACA, an individual,

No. 06-cv-02818-MCE-EFB

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

JUAN-PABLO MOLYNEUX, also

known as JUAN P. MOLYNEUX

also known as J.P. MOLYNEUX,

individually and as Chief 

Executive Officer of J.P. 

MOLYNEUX STUDIO, LTD.; 

J.P. MOLYNEUX STUDIO, LTD., 

a New York corporation; 

and DOES 1-100,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

The present action involves the alleged breach of a contract

to design a private residence to be built in Sacramento,

California. On June 17, 2003, John Saca (“Plaintiff”) met with

Juan-Pablo Molyneux, representing J.P. Molyneux Studio, LTD.

(collectively “Defendants”), in San Francisco, California, to

negotiate a contract for the architectural plan and design of a

private residence. Plaintiff resides in Sacramento, California. 

Case 2:06-cv-02818-MCE -EFB Document 55 Filed 09/19/07 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

2

The individual Defendant resides in New York City, NY, and the

corporate Defendant has its principle place of business in New

York City, NY. 

The present action is before this Court on the basis of

diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff is a citizen of California

claiming over $75,000 in damages and Defendants are citizens of

other states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

The contract called for a complete detailed blueprint and

material specifications for a home to be constructed on

Plaintiff’s property in Sacramento, California. After a second

meeting in San Francisco, California, the parties agreed to and

signed a contract wherein the Defendants would provide the plans

for the home that a contractor could then use to complete

construction. The contract also required that the plans satisfy

local building ordinances and the California Building Code. In

return, Plaintiff agreed to pay $350,000, to be paid in

installments upon completion of each “phase,” until the project

was completed within the agreed upon time of seven (7) months. 

As part of the agreed upon work, Defendant Molyneux visited the

property in Sacramento, California, once. 

On October 20, 2005, Plaintiff submitted the plans to the

County of Sacramento for the necessary approval to obtain a

building permit, but the plans were rejected. In March 2006, and

again in August 2006, revised versions of the plans were resubmitted to the County of Sacramento and were again rejected. 

In September 2006, Defendants refused to perform any more work on

the plans. 

///

Case 2:06-cv-02818-MCE -EFB Document 55 Filed 09/19/07 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

 Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, 1

this matter was deemed suitable for decision without oral

argument. E.D. Local Rule 78-230(h).

3

Plaintiff filed an action for breach of contract and other

related claims in the Eastern District of California on

December 12, 2006. Defendants have asked the Court to transfer

the case to the Southern District of New York. For the reasons

discussed below, Defendants’ motion for change of venue is

DENIED.1

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 . . . where it might have been

brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (emphasis added).

Under § 1404(a), the Court has discretion “to adjudicate

motions for transfer according to an individualized, case-by-case

consideration of convenience and fairness.” Stewart Org. v.

Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (internal quotations and

citations omitted); Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495,

498 (9th Cir. 2000). “A motion to transfer venue under § 1404(a)

requires the court to weigh multiple factors in its determination

whether transfer is appropriate in a particular case. For

example, the court may consider”: 1) the plaintiff’s choice of

forum, 2) respective party contacts with the forum, 3) contacts

relating to the plaintiff’s cause of action in the forum, 4) the

cost of litigation in either forum, 

Case 2:06-cv-02818-MCE -EFB Document 55 Filed 09/19/07 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

4

5) the ease of access to sources of proof, 6) the complexity of

the governing law, 7) the availability of compulsory process to

compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses, and finally

8) other factors that, in the interest of justice, impact the

convenience or fairness of a particular venue. Jones, 211 F.3d

at 498-99 (emphasis added) (citing Stewart, 487 U.S. at 29-31).

ANALYSIS

California is Plaintiff’s choice of forum. The Court

affords considerable deference to the general principle that “the

plaintiff’s choice of forum should rarely be disturbed,”

especially when evidence and witnesses vital to Plaintiff’s

claims are located within the jurisdiction of that forum. Jones,

211 F.3d at 499 (attributing significant weight to the location

of “relevant witnesses and other sources of proof” when

considering a particular venue).

In consideration of a potential trial and trial preparation,

the Court finds that “more of the relevant witnesses and other

sources of proof [are] located in California.” Jones, 211 F.3d

at 499. Defendants assert that the majority of the witnesses

scheduled to be deposed are located in New York City, while

Plaintiff asserts that the majority of the witnesses for trial

are located in California. Given that the contract called for

the design of a residence adhering to local building codes in

Sacramento, proof of issues pertaining to the local building

permit process and the adequacy of Defendants’ performance under

the contract will require local witnesses. 

Case 2:06-cv-02818-MCE -EFB Document 55 Filed 09/19/07 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

5

Due to the nature of residential construction, the

Defendants’ performance of the contract heavily depended upon

satisfying local building codes. Consequently, a majority of

Plaintiff’s claims are related to the Defendants’ alleged failure

to satisfy the local building codes in a timely manner, and the

Defendants’ alleged misrepresentations concerning that work. All

of the personnel employed by Sacramento County to review permit

applications and issue permits reside in California. 

Furthermore, the events upon which Plaintiff’s claims are based

also involved several professionals in the residential

construction field; all of whom reside in the Eastern District of

California. Additionally, the property on which the home was to

be built is located in the Eastern District of California. 

Finally, the Court notes that the non-party witnesses in New

York are all employees of Defendants and Defendants have made no

assertion that these witnesses are unwilling to travel to

California to testify in this trial. Furthermore, Defendants, as

the witnesses employers, have some means to secure that these

witnesses attend and give testimony in a trial in California. 

Plaintiff, however, has no means by which to compel non-party

witnesses in California, namely the employees of Sacramento

County, to appear and give testimony at a trial in New York.

The Court finds the remaining guidelines to be of little

moment given the facts in this case and the convenient flow of

information afforded by modern communication systems.

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-02818-MCE -EFB Document 55 Filed 09/19/07 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

6

CONCLUSION

The Court has carefully reviewed the moving papers and the

arguments raised therein. In light of the controlling federal

precedent, the Court finds that the Southern District of New York

is no more convenient a venue than the Eastern District of

California. Accordingly, transfer of this case to the Southern

District of New York is not warranted.

As such, Defendants’ motion for change of venue to the

Southern District of New York is DENIED.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 18, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02818-MCE -EFB Document 55 Filed 09/19/07 Page 6 of 6