Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02329/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02329-1/pdf.json

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

---

1 

Case No.: 5:15-cv-02329-PSG

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS OR TRANSFER VENUE

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION

 

WILLIAM W. BURNS,

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

ARLENE C. BURNS RHINE, et al., 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 5:15-cv-2329-PSG

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

DISMISS OR TRANSFER VENUE

(Re: Docket No. 9) 

Before the court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss for improper venue, or alternatively, to 

transfer venue to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. Because venue is 

proper in this court, and because Defendants have not demonstrated that transfer to the District of 

Nevada would provide greater convenience to the parties or advance the interests of justice, the 

motion is DENIED. 

I.

This dispute arises from the administration of the trust and estate of Helen R. Burns.1 The 

trust was executed on March 5, 1993 in Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, California,2 and the trust 

 

1 See Docket No. 13 at 1. 

2 See id. at 1. 

Case 5:15-cv-02329-HRL Document 30 Filed 09/02/15 Page 1 of 4
2 

Case No.: 5:15-cv-02329-PSG

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS OR TRANSFER VENUE

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

For the Northern District of California

instrument states that “[t]he Situs of the Trust shall be California.”3 In August 2011, the trust was 

amended to transfer the power of trustee from Ms. Burns to her children, William W. Burns and 

Arlene C. Burns Rhine, to be executed jointly.4

 On May 8, 2015, William W. Burns, Plaintiff here, filed suit in the Northern District of 

California against his sister and her husband, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of 

fiduciary duty, among other claims.

5

 Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for improper 

venue or, in the alternative, to transfer the case to the District of Nevada.6 They both live in Reno, 

Nevada and have been domiciled there since 2007.7 Arlene Burns Rhine further declares that she 

had no dealings with her mother’s financial affairs while she lived in this judicial district, in 

Walnut Creek, California.8

II.

 This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The parties further consented to the 

jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(a).

It is generally the plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate proper venue in the chosen district.9 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), proper venue in a civil diversity action includes “a judicial district 

where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State,” or “a judicial district in 

which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a 

 

3 See id. at 2.

4 See id. at 2.

5 See Docket No. 1 at 8. 

6 See Docket No. 9. 

7 See id. at 1. 

8 See Docket No. 9-3 at ¶ 6. 

9 See Koresko v. RealNetworks, Inc., 291 F. Supp. 2d 1157, 1160 (E.D. Cal. 2003); Whiteman v. 

Grand Wilea Resort, Case No. C 98–04442-MMC, 1999 WL 160344, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 

1999). 

Case 5:15-cv-02329-HRL Document 30 Filed 09/02/15 Page 2 of 4
3 

Case No.: 5:15-cv-02329-PSG

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS OR TRANSFER VENUE

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

For the Northern District of California

substantial part of the property that is subject of the action is situated.”10 Where venue is improper, 

a district court must either dismiss the case or transfer it “in the interest of justice” to an 

appropriate jurisdiction.11 

 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court may transfer any civil action “to any other 

district or division where it might have been brought” for the convenience of the parties and 

witnesses.12 The purpose of the statute is to “prevent the waste ‘of time, energy, and money’ and 

‘to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense.’”13 

Transfer to a more convenient forum requires venue to be proper in the first instance.14 The Ninth 

Circuit has identified eight factors that must be considered: (1) the convenience of the parties and 

witnesses; (2) the location where the alleged events in the lawsuit took place; (3) the relative ease

of access to sources of proof; (4) the plaintiff's choice of forum; (5) the pendency of related 

litigation in the transferee forum; (6) the relative congestion of the two courts; (7) the public 

interest in the local adjudication of local controversies; and (8) the relative familiarity of the two 

courts with the applicable law.15

III.

At issue is whether venue is proper in the Northern District of California. Because a 

substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated in this district, venue is 

proper; transfer is not. 

First, Plaintiff has established that a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the 

action is situated in this judicial district. The trust instrument, which serves as the basis for several 

 

10 See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

11 See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 

12 See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). 

13 Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964). 

14 See Thornton v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., 397 F. Supp. 476, 477 (C.D. Ga. 1975); Nizami 

v. Woods, 263 F. Supp. 124, 125 (C.D.N.Y. 1967). 

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

Case 5:15-cv-02329-HRL Document 30 Filed 09/02/15 Page 3 of 4
Case 5:15-cv-02329-HRL Document 30 Filed 09/02/15 Page 4 of 4