Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00504/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00504-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Property Damage

---

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 07-0504 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 3/23/2007**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FIRST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL

CORPORATION,

 Plaintiff.

 v.

LIBERTY NATIONAL MORTGAGE, INC., et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 07-0504 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 1

TRANSFER

[re: docket nos. 5, 11, 15]

AND RELATED CROSS-CLAIMS.

 

Defendant Forsythe Appraisals, LLC (“Forsythe”) moves to transfer the instant action to

Minnesota. Defendants William Lindblade (“Lindblade”) and Larry Miller (“Miller”) move to

dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Defendant Christopher Vasecka

(“Vasecka”) moves to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper

venue, or, alternatively, to transfer the action to Minnesota. For the reasons discussed below, the

motion to transfer will be granted. In light of the transfer, the Court does not reach the motions

filed by Lindblade and Miller, and Vasecka.

Case 5:07-cv-00504-JF Document 59 Filed 03/23/07 Page 1 of 8
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 The complaint also includes Does 1-100 as Defendants.

2

2

Case No. C 07-0504 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER

(JFLC1)

I. BACKGROUND

On December 7, 2006, Plaintiff First Franklin Financial Corporation filed the complaint

in this action in the Santa Clara Superior Court. The complaint asserted claims for: (i) breach of

written broker agreement; (ii) negligent misrepresentation; (iii) negligence; (iv) implied

indemnity; (v) total equitable indemnity; and (vi) money had and received. The complaint named

as defendants Liberty National Mortgage, Inc. (“Liberty”), Miller, Lindblade, doing business as

Lindblade Appraisal, Inc. (“LAI”), Vasecka, and Vasecka’s employer, Forsythe Appraisals, LLC

(“Forsythe”). 

2

Plaintiff alleges the following: This action stems from a failed mortgage on a parcel of

real property in Minneapolis, Minnesota (“the Property”). Liberty is a licensed mortgage broker. 

Complaint ¶ 2. Liberty entered into a Mortgage Broker Agreement (“the MBA”) on or about

November 26, 2001. Id. ¶ 18. Liberty submitted a loan package to Plaintiff that Plaintiff funded

on or about June 8, 2004, in the principal amount of $357,000.00 (“the Loan”). Id. Pursuant to

the loan, Lawrence Means (“Means”) executed a promissory note in favor of Plaintiff and a

mortgage in favor of Plaintiff to secure payment of the note. Id. ¶ 10-11. 

Plaintiff alleges further that Miller, Lindblade, and Vasecka are real estate appraisers. Id.

¶ 3-4. Miller and Lindblade, acting on behalf of LAI, prepared an appraisal dated November 19,

2003, that valued the Property at $420,000.00. Id. ¶ 5. Vasecka prepared a review appraisal that

claimed to confirm the original appraisal of $420,000.00. Id. ¶ 6. However, the appraisal reports

by Lindblade and Miller on behalf of LAI and by Vasecka on behalf of Forsythe misrepresented

the true value of the Property. Id. ¶ 15. Other appraisal reports valued the property at

$219,500.00. Id. Plaintiff was damaged in the amount of $159,928.84 after the Means defaulted

on the Loan and the Property was foreclosed and sold. Id. ¶ 16.

On January 24, 2007, the defendants removed the case to this Court on the basis of

diversity jurisdiction. On January 26, 2007, Liberty answered the complaint and asserted crossclaims against Means, Sonya Means, Miller, Lindblade (doing business as LAI), Vasecka, and

Case 5:07-cv-00504-JF Document 59 Filed 03/23/07 Page 2 of 8
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

3

Case No. C 07-0504 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER

(JFLC1)

Forsythe for (i) indemnity; (ii) contribution; (iii) declaratory relief; (iv) misrepresentation; (v)

unjust enrichment; (vi) negligence; and (vii) breach of fiduciary duty and/or confidential

relationship. On February 9, 2007, Forsythe answered the complaint and asserted cross-claims

against Liberty, Means, Sonya Means, Miller, and Lindblade (doing business as LAI) for (i)

indemnity; (ii) contribution; and (iii) declaratory relief. 

On January 31, 2007, Lindblade and Miller moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of

personal jurisdiction. On February 9, 2007, Forsythe moved to transfer the action to the District

of Minnesota, and Vasecka moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and

lack of venue, or, alternatively, to transfer the action to Minnesota. Plaintiff opposes the

motions. The Court heard oral argument on March 23, 2007. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

(a) 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 court may transfer an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) if transfer would

serve the interest of justice and the convenience of parties and witnesses, even if it lacks personal

jurisdiction over defendants. Reed v. Brown, 623 F.Supp. 342, 346 (D.Nev. 1985). 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. 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).

A motion to 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

Case 5:07-cv-00504-JF Document 59 Filed 03/23/07 Page 3 of 8
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

 Lindblade declares the following about LAI: (i) LAI is a Minnesota “C” Corporation 3

that ceased doing business in 2004; (ii) LAI provided local real estate appraisals within

Minnesota and Wisconsin; (iii) LAI was qualified to do business in Minnesota and Wisconsin,

but not qualified or licensed to do business in California; (iv) LAI never appointed an agent for

service of process in California; and (v) LAI did not have employees or shareholders resident in

California, have an office or mailing address in California, own or lease real property in

California, or pay income, property, or use taxes in California. Lindblade Decl. ¶¶ 5-8. 

4

Case No. C 07-0504 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER

(JFLC1)

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. 

III. DISCUSSION

Four of the GNC Franchising factors provide strong support for granting the motion to

transfer. First, three defendants have had very limited contacts with California. Lindblade

declares that: 

(i) he has been a resident of Minnesota for sixty-seven years; (ii) he is a licensed

real estate appraiser in Minnesota, but not in California; (iii) he does not own or

lease property in California and has never paid income, property, or use taxes in

California; and (iv) his only travel to California has been for vacations and to visit

family who live in the state. 

Lindblade Decl. ¶¶ 1-4. Miller declares that: 3

(i) he has been a resident of Minnesota for nineteen years; (ii) he is a licensed real

estate appraiser in Minnesota, is not licensed in California, and has never been

employed in California; (iii) he does not own or lease property in California and

has never paid income, property, or use taxes in California; (iv) his only travel to

California has been occasional visits to family members who live in the state; and

(v) he was an independent contractor for LAI at the time relevant to this litigation. 

Miller Decl. ¶¶ 1-6. Vasecka declares that: 

(i) he has been a resident of Minnesota for twenty years; (ii) he is a licensed real

estate appraiser in Minnesota, but not in California, and he has never been

employed in California; (iii) he does not own or lease property in California and

has never paid income, property, or use taxes in California; (iv) he has never

visited or traveled through California; (v) he was an employee of Forsythe at all

times relevant to this litigation; and (vi) did not purposely perform any act

intended to subject himself to the jurisdiction of Courts in California. 

Case 5:07-cv-00504-JF Document 59 Filed 03/23/07 Page 4 of 8
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

 The Minnesota state court action is entitled Liberty National Mortgage, Inc. v. 4

Lawrence Means, et al. It was filed in June, 2006, six months prior to the filing of the instant

action. Plaintiff is not a party to the Minnesota state court suit.

5

Case No. C 07-0504 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER

(JFLC1)

Vasecka Decl. ¶¶ 1-5. In light of the limited nature of their contacts with California and, as

discussed below, the limited relationship between such contacts and the litigation, it appears

highly unlikely that the Court has personal jurisdiction over these defendants. 

Second, the moving defendants’ contacts with California have little relevance to the

litigation. Plaintiff argues that Defendants had relevant contacts because the original appraisal

was prepared for a California Company, People’s Choice Home Loan, Inc. (“People’s Choice”),

whose office is in Irvine, California, and because Lindblade and Miller, doing business as LAI,

prepared approximately one-hundred and three appraisals that came into the possession of

Plaintiff, and that formed the basis of loans worth $20,219,906.00. However, Plaintiff overstates

the significance of these facts. There is no evidence that the Defendants did anything more than

sell their appraisals to national clearinghouses which then resold them to Plaintiff, nor is there

evidence that Defendants solicited People’s Choice’s business in California. There is no

evidence that the moving parties had any negotiations or dealings with Plaintiff in California

with regard to the specific appraisals at issue in this litigation. Finally, while LAI or Lindblade

may have been granted approval to submit appraisals to Plaintiff, there is no evidence that such

approval is anything more than a matter of form, that it has particular relevance to this litigation,

or that LAI submitted any appraisals directly to Plaintiff. 

Third, it appears that it will be less expensive for the parties to litigate in Minnesota than

in California. While Plaintiff may bear additional expense, every other party is either a

Minnesota resident, a Minnesota corporation, or a foreign company with its principal place of

business in Minnesota. The existence of a Minnesota state court action regarding other aspects

of the transaction for the Property also suggests that transfer may reduce litigation costs by

permitting increased efficiency in the development of the factual record. 

4

Fourth, it will be easier to gain access to necessary proof in Minnesota because of the

Case 5:07-cv-00504-JF Document 59 Filed 03/23/07 Page 5 of 8
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

 The issue of the Court’s jurisdiction over Means and Sonya Means is not before the 5

Court, but it appears unlikely that the Court would have personal jurisdiction over these residents

of Minnesota.

 The parties dispute whether Plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence in support of its 6

assertion that the MBA was executed in California.

6

Case No. C 07-0504 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER

(JFLC1)

availability of defendants and cross-defendants over whom it appears that the Court likely does 5

not have personal jurisdiction. 

Plaintiff’s choice of forum and California public policy may support keeping this action

in this Court, but Plaintiff cites no authority suggesting that a finding in favor of Plaintiff on

these factors is sufficient to outweigh the greater number of factors that weigh strongly for

transfer. The remaining GNC Franchising factors provide little guidance for the Court’s

consideration of the motion. First, the action will apparently involve questions of California law

with respect to the MBA and Minnesota law with respect to the various duties of the real estate

appraisers, so this Court has particular familiarity with only a portion of the governing law. 

Second, the MBA includes a forum selection clause selecting Santa Clara County, but only

Plaintiff and Liberty are parties to that agreement, so the clause has no bearing on the analysis of

the most appropriate forum with respect to the other defendants or the cross-defendants. Third,

even if the MBA was executed in California, Plaintiff and Liberty are the only parties to that 6

agreement and the interpretation of that agreement will be only one of many aspects of this

litigation. Finally, the majority of the witnesses essential to determining the merits of this action

appear to be parties, so the availability of compulsory process for non-party witnesses does not

affect the Court’s analysis. 

The District of Minnesota apparently has personal jurisdiction over each of the

defendants and the cross-defendants, and it is undisputed that venue is proper in that district. The

Court therefore concludes that transfer of this action to the District of Minnesota would further

both the interests of justice and the convenience of the parties. Because these factors so strongly

favor transfer, the Court need not decide whether Plaintiff is forum-shopping. 

IV. ORDER

Case 5:07-cv-00504-JF Document 59 Filed 03/23/07 Page 6 of 8
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

7

Case No. C 07-0504 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER

(JFLC1)

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

GRANTED. The action is hereby transferred to the District of Minnesota. All other pending

motions are terminated as moot.

DATED: March 23, 2007.

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-00504-JF Document 59 Filed 03/23/07 Page 7 of 8
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

8

Case No. C 07-0504 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Gina Lorraine Albertson glalbertson@wolfewyman.com,

erhayes@wolfewyman.com 

Gregory K Klingsporn gklingsporn@pobox.com 

Phuong Hong Nguyen pnguyen@hayesdavis.com, abowman@hayesdavis.com 

Brian Christophe Plante bplante@greenhall.com 

Eric M. Schiffer emschiffer@wolfewyman.com,

amdarling@wolfewyman.com 

Stephen A. Scott sscott@hayesdavis.com, sxs1@hayesdavis.com 

Case 5:07-cv-00504-JF Document 59 Filed 03/23/07 Page 8 of 8