Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08158/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08158-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

O 

JS-6 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

AGCS MARINE INSURANCE CO., 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

KRIEGER AMERICAN 

TRANSPORTATION CO., LLC; 

KNIGHT PORT SERVICES LLC; 

EXPRESS TRANS, INC.; DOUBLE J 

TRUCK REPAIR, INC.; and DOES 1 

through 20, inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 2:12-cv-04608-ODW(FMOx) 

ORDER TRANSFERRING VENUE 

[10] 

 This action involves a freight accident that occurred in Mojave County, 

Arizona. Plaintiff AGCS Marine Insurance Co., a California insurance corporation, 

sued Defendants on behalf of its subrogor, H.D. Buttercup Rugs, for cargo damaged 

or lost as a result of the accident. Defendants seek to dismiss or transfer AGCS’s suit 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) to the United States District Court of 

Arizona, where a related action is pending.1 Or alternatively, to transfer the action to 

the Arizona court under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for forum non conveniens.

2

 

1

 Although Defendants seek a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court 

interprets Defendants’ motion as one under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3). 

2

 Having considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to this motion, the Court deems 

the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. 

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

Case 3:12-cv-08158-GMS Document 18 Filed 08/06/12 Page 1 of 5
 

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

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

 Defendant Krieger American Transportation Co., LLC removed this action 

from the Superior Court of California based on federal question jurisdiction. All of 

the Defendants are corporations that transport, store, and forward cargo. (Compl. 

¶¶ 3–6.) Of the four named Defendants, three are California corporations with 

principal places of business in California, and the fourth is an Arizona corporation 

with a principal place of business in Arizona. (Id.) 

 Defendants accepted a cargo load in Hawthorne, California, to be transported to 

White Plains, New York. (Id. ¶ 9.) While en-route, Defendants’ tractor-trailer was 

involved in an accident. (Id. ¶ 10.) 

 In November of 2011, an entity named Knight Brokerage, LLC, filed an action 

for declaratory relief in the United States District Court of Arizona, which names as 

parties all of the parties in this case. Knight Brokerage sued there based on the 

Carmack Amendment, which allows a civil action against a freight carrier to be 

brought in the federal district where the loss or damage allegedly occurred. 49 U.S.C. 

§ 14706(d)(2). 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3), a case may be dismissed for 

improper venue. Venue in federal question cases is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), 

which provides that venue is proper in any judicial district where any defendant 

resides if all defendants reside in the same state, or in any judicial district in which a 

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1391(b)(1), (2). If there is no district in which the action may otherwise be 

brought, venue is proper in any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to 

personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(3). 

For venue purposes, a corporation resides in any judicial district where it would 

be subject to personal jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). In states such as California, 

which has more than one judicial district, a corporation is deemed to reside in any 

Case 3:12-cv-08158-GMS Document 18 Filed 08/06/12 Page 2 of 5
 

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

district within the state with which its contacts would be sufficient to subject it to 

personal jurisdiction if the district were a separate state. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). Once a 

defendant has raised a timely objection to venue, the plaintiff has the burden of 

showing that venue is proper. Piedmont Label Co. v. Sun Garden Packing Co., 598 

F.2d 491, 496 (9th Cir. 1979). 

When determining proper venue, a court can look beyond the pleadings of the 

claim, and does not have to take a plaintiff’s factual allegations as true. Murphy v. 

Schneider Nat’l, Inc., 362 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2003). But when the facts are 

disputed, the trial court must draw all reasonable inferences and resolve all factual 

conflicts in favor of the non-moving party. Id. at 1138. 

If the court determines that venue is improper, it must “dismiss, or if it be in the 

interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have 

been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). And for a motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1404(a) for forum non conveniens, courts have broad discretion to adjudicate 

“according to an individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and 

fairness.” Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000). 

III. DISCUSSION 

AGCS contends that the Central District of California should retain jurisdiction 

of the suit. In support of this assertion, AGCS avers that the original transaction 

engaging Defendants to transport the cargo occurred in California, and that 

Defendants are either California corporations, have their principal place of business in 

California, or conduct significant business in California. (Opp’n 2.) Defendants 

move to dismiss or transfer venue to the District Court of Arizona on the premise that 

venue is proper there, and that there is already a related action pending before that 

court. (Reply 6; Mot. 4.) 

It is undisputed that the purpose of this suit is to determine the responsibilities 

or obligations of all parties involved in the accident. (Opp’n 8; Mot. 3.) This accident 

occurred in Arizona, and under both the Carmack Amendment and 28 U.S.C. 

Case 3:12-cv-08158-GMS Document 18 Filed 08/06/12 Page 3 of 5
 

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

§ 1391(b)(2), venue is proper in Arizona. Although this Court may be a proper venue 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) based on the residency of the Defendants, the Arizona 

accident is central to the determination of venue. This lawsuit would not have been 

filed had the accident in Arizona not occurred. Moreover, all parties to the instant 

action––AGCS included––have already appeared in the Arizona action. (Opp’n 6.) 

And the Court finds that the issues in this case are identical to those in the Arizona 

action. These facts suggest that although venue is proper in this Court, the District of 

Arizona is a more convenient forum. 

Defendants also urge transfer to the Arizona court under the first-to-file rule. 

(Mot. 4.) The first-to-file rule dictates that if two actions regarding the same or 

similar matters are filed in two separate courts, the first court retains authority to 

address arguments of forum non conveniens. Pacesetter Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 

678 F.2d 93, 96 (9th Cir. 1982). The purpose of the rule is to provide “comprehensive 

disposition of litigation” and to conserve judicial resources. Id. at 95. When applying 

the first-to-file rule, the second court should assume that the first court will 

“appropriately consider the convenience of the parties and witnesses.” Alltrade, Inc. 

v. Uniweld Prods., Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 628 (9th Cir. 1991). But the second court has 

broad discretion to stay, transfer, or dismiss the second pending action to allow the 

first court to decide the disposition of the actions. Id. at 628–29. 

The Court finds that the first-to-file rule applies here. Under the first-to-file 

rule, unless it is clear the first court is incapable of determining the issues in the 

action, there is no reason the first court should not have leave to decide the issues 

before it. Pacesetter, 678 F.2d at 96. Consequently, only the District Court of 

Arizona may consider arguments under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for forum non 

conveniens. Nevertheless, this Court may transfer this case to the District Court of 

Arizona under the first-to-file rule. Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 628–29. If the Arizona court 

later determines that this Court is the more convenient forum, then it may transfer 

both cases to this Court at that juncture. 

Case 3:12-cv-08158-GMS Document 18 Filed 08/06/12 Page 4 of 5
 

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

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion under Rule 

12(b)(3), and GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Transfer under the first-to-file rule. 

Thus, this case is hereby transferred to the United States District Court for the District 

of Arizona. Parties must file a notice of related case with the Arizona court within 21 

days of this order. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

August 6, 2012 

 ____________________________________ 

 OTIS D. WRIGHT, II 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:12-cv-08158-GMS Document 18 Filed 08/06/12 Page 5 of 5