Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01075/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01075-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1452 R&amp;R re motions to remand (non-core)

---

United States District Court

For the 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

SENORX, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUDERT BROTHERS, LLP, and DOES 

1-500,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-07-1075 SC

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO

TRANSFER

I. INTRODUCTION

Presently before the Court is a motion by Defendants Coudert

Brothers, LLP et al. ("Defendants" or "Coudert") to transfer this

case to the United States District Court for the Southern District

of New York, the court in which Coudert Brothers LLP's Chapter 11

Bankruptcy proceeding is pending. See Mot. to Transfer, Docket

No. 29. Plaintiff SenoRx, Inc. ("Plaintiff" or "SenoRx") opposes

the motion.

For the reasons discussed herein, the Court GRANTS

Defendants' Motion to Transfer.

II. BACKGROUND

In 2001, SenoRx retained Coudert Brothers LLP to represent it

in the filing of several foreign patent applications. See Mot. to

Transfer, 1-2. In 2004, Plaintiff sued Defendants in California

Case 3:07-cv-01075-SC Document 36 Filed 08/27/07 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the 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 -2-

Superior Court for professional negligence stemming from

Defendants' legal advice and actions on behalf of Plaintiff. See

id. From late 2004 through late 2006, the state court litigation

continued as Plaintiff filed several amendments to substitute

limited liability partners of Coudert Brothers LLP for the Doe

defendants and Defendants filed demurrers. See id. 

On September 22, 2006, Coudert filed a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

Petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern

District of New York: In re Coudert Brothers LLP, Case No. 06-

12226 (the "Bankruptcy Case"). See id. On November 8, 2006,

Plaintiff filed its Fourth Amended Complaint and the state court

subsequently overruled Defendants' demurrer to that complaint. 

See id. at 3. On January 31, 2007, Plaintiff filed a proof of

claim in the Bankruptcy Case seeking the same recovery as the

claims set forth in its Fourth Amended Complaint. See id.

Defendants subsequently removed the action to federal court. See

id. at 4. On May 24, 2007, this Court denied Plaintiff's Motion

to Remand, finding that Plaintiff's claims against Coudert

Brothers LLP are core bankruptcy matters and Plaintiff's claims

against the Individual Partner Defendants of the firm are related

to the Bankruptcy Case. Thus, the Bankruptcy Court may properly

obtain jurisdiction over this case.

III. DISCUSSION

28 U.S.C. § 1412 is used to analyze the request for a change

of venue in a proceeding related to a bankruptcy case. See A.B.

Real Estate, Inc. v. Bruno's, Inc. (In re Bruno's, Inc.), 227 B.R.

Case 3:07-cv-01075-SC Document 36 Filed 08/27/07 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the 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

1 The Court found several significant and obvious errors in

Defendants' citations. Attorneys should always proofread and citecheck their briefs before submitting them to the Court.

-3-

311, 323 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1998).1 Under the statute, "[a]

district court may transfer a case or proceeding under title 11 to

a district court for another district, in the interest of justice

or for the convenience of the parties." 28 U.S.C. § 1412. 

Further, "[t]he party that seeks to transfer venue bears the

burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that transfer

would be appropriate." TIG Ins. Co. v. Smolker (In re TIG Ins.

Co.), 264 B.R. 661, 668 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2001). 

Defendants' request under the "interest of justice" prong is

analyzed under "a broad and flexible standard which must be

applied on a case-by-case basis." Gulf States Exploration Co. v.

Manville Forest Prods. Corp. (In re Manville Forest Prods. Corp.),

896 F.2d 1384, 1391 (2d Cir. 1990). The variety of factors

considered include the economics of estate administration, the

presumption in favor of the "home court", judicial efficiency, the

ability to receive a fair trial, the state's interest in having

local controversies decided within its borders by those familiar

with its laws, the enforceability of the judgment, and plaintiff's

original choice of forum. See In re Bruno's, Inc., 227 B.R. at

324-25. "[T]he most important consideration is whether the

requested transfer would promote the economic and efficient

administration of the estate." In re Commonwealth Oil Refining

Co., Inc., 596 F.2s 1239, 1247 (5th Cir. 1979). The "home court"

is the bankruptcy court in which the debtor's case is pending. 

Case 3:07-cv-01075-SC Document 36 Filed 08/27/07 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the 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 -4-

See Irwin v. Beloit Corp. (In re Harnischfeger Indus.), 246 B.R.

421, 440 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 2000).

Analysis of the relevant factors weighs heavily in favor of

transfer. First, resolution of the professional negligence claims

filed by SenoRx will have a significant effect on the economics of

estate administration because SenoRx's proof of claim carries a

potential liability of over $25 million. Second, the "home court"

for the estate is the Southern District of New York. Third,

judicial efficiency will be served by administering all claims

against the estate in the same forum. Finally, the remaining

factors also weigh in favor of transfer. The most efficient and

economical place to administer the Coudert estate is in the

Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The Court

finds that Coudert has met its burden to demonstrate that transfer

is appropriate.

SenoRx argues that it would be less convenient to try the

case in New York as opposed to California. Coudert disagrees. 

The relevant factors regarding convenience include the location of

plaintiff and defendant, ease of access to necessary proof,

convenience of witnesses, availability of subpoena power for the

unwilling witnesses, and the expense relating to obtaining

witnesses. See In re Bruno's, Inc., 227 B.R. at 325. In this

case, though most of the witnesses and documents reside in

California, they will also be available in New York. Furthermore,

the case will likely involve numerous expert witnesses and issues

of international law which favor neither California nor New York.

Having considered the evidence presented, the Court finds

Case 3:07-cv-01075-SC Document 36 Filed 08/27/07 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the 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 -5-

that the interests of justice heavily favor transfer to New York

while convenience slightly favors retaining jurisdiction in

California. On balance, the evidence weighs in favor of transfer

and the Court finds that the best course of action is to transfer

this case to the District Court for the Southern District of New

York.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons described herein, Defendants' Motion to

Transfer is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 27, 2007

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:07-cv-01075-SC Document 36 Filed 08/27/07 Page 5 of 5