Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00697/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00697-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

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 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

Case No. C 07-0697 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 5/14/2007**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

EUNICE M. HARMS, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.,

et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 07-0697 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 1

TRANSFER VENUE

[re: docket no. 9]

I. BACKGROUND

On February 2, 2007, Plaintiffs Eunice Harms and Glenn Watanabe filed a complaint in

this Court on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. The action “seeks redress of

defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc.’s [“Experian”] failure to adhere to FCRA’s [Fair

Credit Reporting Act] requirements of reasonable procedures in preparing and disseminating

accurate credit reports relating to consumers.” Complaint ¶ 1. Plaintiffs allege that:

Within the five years before the filing of this Complaint, EXPERIAN prepared

Consumer Credit Reports relating to Plaintiffs that contained false, misleading

Case 5:07-cv-00697-JF Document 21 Filed 05/14/07 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

Case No. C 07-0697 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

(JFLC1)

and inaccurate information and distributed them to creditors, potential creditors

and other third parties. The information was false, misleading and inaccurate with

respect to Plaintiffs’ respective home equity line of credit (“HELOC”) accounts . .

. . In brief, Plaintiffs’ HELOCs, and all HELOCs, are secured by real property,

yet EXPERIAN failed to clearly identify Plaintiffs’ HELOCs as HELOCs or at

least as debt secured by real property, and misrepresented the extent of Plaintiffs’

respective unsecured revolving debt - making it appear more extensive than it

actually was - through the inappropriate, willful use of misleading “Summary”

sections, primarily in relation to the HELOCs. 

Complaint ¶ 10. The complaint asserts one claim for willful noncompliance with the FCRA, 15

U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. 

On March 7, 2007, Experian answered the complaint. On April 5, 2007, Experian moved

to transfer venue to the Central District of California, primarily on the ground that Plaintiffs are

forum shopping. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. The Court heard oral argument on May 11, 2007. 

II. 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). A motion for transfer pursuant to § 1404(a) lies within the discretion of the

Court. Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000). The decision

whether to grant such a motion turns on the facts of the particular case. Id. The factors to be

weighed in deciding a motion for transfer include: (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; (8) the ease of access to sources of proof; (9) the

presence of a forum selection clause; and (10) the relevant public policy of the forum state, if

any. Id. at 498-99.

Ordinarily, a plaintiff’s choice of forum is accorded substantial weight, and courts will

not grant a motion under § 1404(a) unless the “convenience” and “justice” factors tip strongly in

favor of transfer. Florens Container v. Cho Yang Shipping, 245 F.Supp.2d 1086, 1092 (N.D.

Cal. 2002); see also Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 257 (1981); Decker Coal Co. v.

Case 5:07-cv-00697-JF Document 21 Filed 05/14/07 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

 Plaintiffs’ counsel believe that “the course of the litigation in general, and discovery in 2

particular, will be markedly different in the present action than it was in the Stearn Action” due

to the fact that the Stearn action contains a negligent misrepresentation claim that does not appear

in the instant complaint. Barness Declaration ¶ 1.

3

Case No. C 07-0697 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

(JFLC1)

Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). However, the Court may

disregard the plaintiff’s choice of forum where the plaintiff’s suit is the result of forum-shopping. 

Alltrade. Inc., v. Uniweld Products, Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 628 (9th Cir. 1991). 

III. DISCUSSION

1. The Previously Dismissed Action in the Central District of California

On April 13, 2006, Laurence Stearn (“Stearn”) commenced an action (“the Stearn

action”) in the Central District of California against Experian for violations of the FCRA. 

Barness Decl. ¶ 1. Stearn was represented by the same attorneys who represent Plaintiffs in the

instant action. The complaint asserted claims for both intentional and negligent violations of the

FCRA. Id. At a hearing on July 17, 2006, Judge Anderson struck the class allegations from the 2

complaint for failure to comply with Central District Civ. L.R. 23-3, which provides that

“[w]ithin 90 days after service of a pleading purporting to commence a class action . . . , the

proponent of the class shall file a motion for certification that the action is maintainable as a class

action, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.” McCurdy Declaration Ex. 2 at 7-8. Stearn

moved for relief from this order, and Experian filed opposition papers. See Barness Decl. Exs.

C-D. However, Judge Anderson took the motion off calendar and did not issue a ruling. Barness

Decl. ¶ 3. On September 28, 2006, counsel for Stearn proposed a stipulation for dismissal with

prejudice, Motion 3, and the action was dismissed on October 2, 2007. Notice of Previous

Dismissed Action Involving Similar Issues Ex. D. 

Plaintiffs criticize Judge Anderson’s order striking the class allegations from the Stearn

action and his subsequent refusal to modify that order. However, it is not the role of this Court to

review decisions of other district courts. In light of the absence of an adjudication to the contrary

by the Ninth Circuit, this Court may not question the propriety of Judge Anderson’s order in

analyzing the instant motion.

Case 5:07-cv-00697-JF Document 21 Filed 05/14/07 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

Case No. C 07-0697 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

(JFLC1)

2. Convenience of the Parties and the Interests of Justice

The foregoing circumstances suggest strongly that Plaintiffs are forum shopping, and that

this Court should exercise its discretion in favor of a transfer. While the instant complaint may

not include the negligence claim asserted in the Stearn action, the two complaints share extensive

similarities. The named plaintiffs may have changed, but each action challenges the same

underlying conduct by Experian, and the named plaintiffs in the instant action and the Stearn

action appear to fall within the class definition of each complaint. See Complaint ¶ 21; Stearn

Complaint ¶ 16. The primary effect of the stipulated dismissal was to allow Plaintiffs’ counsel to

refile a virtually identical suit in a new forum. This refiling does not benefit Stearn, since his

action was dismissed with prejudice, but it does permit Plaintiff’s counsel to seek a more

favorably inclined judge. Such behavior should be discouraged. 

Venue is proper in the Central District, as Experian’s principal place of business is in

Orange County. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). The location of many of Experian’s records in

Orange County also favors transfer to the Central District since it appears that access to proof

will be easier in that district. While the named plaintiffs reside in this district, and the alleged

misconduct with respect to the named plaintiffs occurred in this district, the Court concludes that

the national scope of the asserted class action makes the place of execution of the particular

agreements and the contacts at issue only marginally relevant. See Italian Colors Restaurant v.

American Express Company, 2003 WL 22682482 *3 (N.D.Cal. Nov. 10, 2003) (unpublished). 

The other Jones factors provide little direction as to the proper forum for this action. However,

in light of Plaintiffs’ forum shopping, the Court concludes that the interests of justice tip strongly

in favor of transferring this action. Accordingly, the motion to transfer the action will be granted. 

3. Scope of the Court’s Decision

The parties dispute the scope of the relief sought by Experian. To clarify, the Court

expresses no opinion as to whether this action may proceed as a class action, whether the rulings

in the Stearn action have any preclusive effect on this action, whether the Stearn action otherwise

alters the procedural posture of this action, or whether the local practices of the Central District

of California require that this action be assigned to the same judge who presided over the Stearn

Case 5:07-cv-00697-JF Document 21 Filed 05/14/07 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

Case No. C 07-0697 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

(JFLC1)

Action.

IV. ORDER

Good cause therefor appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to transfer

venue is GRANTED. The action is hereby transferred to the Central District of California. 

DATED: May 14, 2007

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-00697-JF Document 21 Filed 05/14/07 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

Case No. C 07-0697 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Daniel Isaac Barness dan@spiromoss.com, gail@spiromoss.com 

Suzanne Cate Jones scjones@jonesday.com, iramirez@jonesday.com 

Lisa Christine McCurdy lcmccurdy@jonesday.com 

Daniel John McLoon djmcloon@jonesday.com, cmcdaniel@jonesday.com 

J. Mark Moore mmoore@smbhblaw.com 

James Mark Moore mark@spiromoss.com, jeanette@spiromoss.com;

gail@spiromoss.com 

Brian James Recor brecor@jonesday.com, toniksutton@jonesday.com 

Ira Spiro ispiro@smbhblaw.com 

Case 5:07-cv-00697-JF Document 21 Filed 05/14/07 Page 6 of 6