Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01225/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01225-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRUCE CARPENTER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1225 DFL GGH PS

vs.

TYCO PLASTIC CO., 

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Defendant’s motion to transfer venue, filed September 2, 2005, is presently before

the court. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has not filed an opposition in response to defendant’s

motion. After reviewing the motion, the court determined that oral argument is not necessary

and issues the following order. This case has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to E.D.

Cal. L.R. 72-302(c)(21). 

On May 20, 2005, plaintiff filed his complaint in the Superior Court of the State

of California, County of Yolo. Defendants then removed the matter to this court on June 17,

2005. Defendant’s motion to change venue was brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). 

Defendant argues that the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and the interests of justice,

compel the transfer of this action to the District of Nevada. 

\\\\\

Case 2:05-cv-01225-DFL-GGH Document 14 Filed 10/27/05 Page 1 of 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

2

This action stems from plaintiff’s employment by defendant in Sparks, Nevada,

where plaintiff claims he was subjected to racial discrimination in the workplace. Defendant

asserts that almost all of the anticipated witnesses reside in Nevada and cannot be compelled to

attend trial in the Eastern District of California. Further, defendant alleges that the vast majority

of documentary evidence is located in Nevada, that Nevada law should govern plaintiff’s claims,

and that the comparatively low docket congestion in the District of Nevada compels transfer from

the Eastern District of California, where the docket is considerably more congested. 

The controlling statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides: “For the convenience of

parties and witnesses, and 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.” Under this provision, the

district court has discretion to adjudicate motions to transfer according to case-by-case

consideration of convenience and fairness. Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498

(9th Cir. 2000). 

The court weighs multiple factors in determining whether transfer is appropriate,

and may consider the following: (1) the state that is most familiar with the governing law; (2)

plaintiff’s choice of forum; (3) the respective parties’ contacts with the forum; (4) the contacts

relating to the plaintiff’s cause of action in the chosen forum; (5) the differences in the costs of

litigation in the two forums; (6) the availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of

unwilling non-party witnesses, and (7) the ease of access to sources of proof. Jones, 211 F.3d at

498-99. 

Based on a brief review of plaintiff’s complaint, the court cannot determine what

law governs plaintiff’s claims. On the cover sheet to the complaint filed in Superior Court,

plaintiff describes his case as a business tort, a civil rights violation, and an employment dispute.

Defendant asserts that Nevada law is controlling and plaintiff has not filed an opposition

disputing that contention. Plaintiff’s choice to file suit in state court in Yolo County weighs

against transferring the case to the District of Nevada. Because plaintiff has not responded to

Case 2:05-cv-01225-DFL-GGH Document 14 Filed 10/27/05 Page 2 of 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

3

defendant’s motion to transfer, it is unclear what his contacts with the Eastern District are, but it 

appears that he was employed by defendant in Nevada where his claims arose. The workplace

where plaintiff suffered the alleged discrimination is in Nevada, as are the majority of anticipated

witnesses, whom defendant claims cannot be compelled to attend trial in this court. Finally,

defendant asserts that all documents relating to plaintiff’s employment and termination are

located in Nevada. 

 After considering the convenience of witnesses, the location of evidence, and

judicial economy, the court in its discretion grants the motion to transfer venue. See Decker Coal

Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 842 (9th Cir. 1986).

Good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that defendant’s motion to change venue

is GRANTED. 

DATED: 10/26/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

____________________________________

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:mb

Carpenter1225.tr

Case 2:05-cv-01225-DFL-GGH Document 14 Filed 10/27/05 Page 3 of 3