Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03243/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03243-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 310
Nature of Suit: Airplane Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Tort Action

---

ORDER – No. 19-cv-03243-LB

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

San Francisco Division

ISMAEL AGASINO,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICAN AIRLINES INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-03243-LB

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR 

IMPROPER VENUE BUT GRANTING 

MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE

UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1404

Re: ECF No. 12

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Ismael Agasino, who does not live in California and does not allege any connection to 

California, brings this lawsuit against defendant American Airlines, Inc., which is not a citizen of 

California, for injuries he suffered on a flight that had no connection to California. American 

Airlines moved to dismiss for improper venue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) or, 

in the alternative, to transfer the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1404.

The court can decide this motion without oral argument. N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The court 

denies American Airlines’s motion to dismiss but finds that transfer is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1404 and transfers this case to the Northern District of Texas.

Case 3:19-cv-03243-LB Document 21 Filed 07/26/19 Page 1 of 9
ORDER – No. 19-cv-03243-LB 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

STATEMENT

Plaintiff Ismael Agasino is a citizen and resident of the United States.1 Mr. Agasino does not 

allege that he is a citizen or resident of California.

2 Mr. Agasino does not allege that he has any 

connection to California.3

Defendant American Airlines is a citizen of Texas, where it maintains its principal business 

offices.4 More specifically, American Airlines maintains its principal offices in Fort Worth, 

Texas.

5 Fort Worth is in the Northern District of Texas.

Mr. Agasino booked a flight on American Airlines Flight 60, flying on June 1, 2018.6 Flight 

60 flew from Tokyo, Japan to Dallas, Texas.

7 Dallas is in the Northern District of Texas. On that 

flight, a bag fell from an overhead storage compartment and hit Mr. Agasino in the head.

8 Mr. 

Agasino lost consciousness and suffered injuries, including a concussion, cervical strain, and 

cognitive impairment.9 Mr. Agasino makes a claim under the Convention for the Unification of 

 

1 Compl. – ECF No. 1 at 2 (¶ 1). Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); 

pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.

2

See generally Compl. – ECF No. 1; see also Civil Cover Sheet – ECF No. 1-1 (stating that Mr. 

Agasino’s county of residence is “Middlesex,” which is not a county of California); Pl. Opp’n – ECF 

No. 17 at 9 (stating that Mr. Agasino would have to “travel[] to San Francisco” to litigate this case). 

Mr. Agasino does not disclose in either his complaint or his opposition where he lives.

3

See generally Compl. – ECF No. 1.

4

Id. at 2 (¶ 2).

5

See, e.g., American Airlines, Inc., Form 10-K (2019), available at https://www.sec.gov/Archives/

edgar/data/4515/000000620119000009/a10k123118.htm (last visited July 26, 2019). The court can 

take judicial notice of the location of American Airlines’s principal offices. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); cf.

Miller v. Roundpoint Mortg. Serv. Corp., No. 3:18-cv-00106-BEN-BLM, 2018 WL 1069433, at *2

(C.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2018) (taking judicial notice of company’s principal place of business based on 

Secretary of State’s website) (citing Franklin v. Eisner, No. 96-CV-935 JSB, 1996 WL 406795, at *1 

(N.D. Cal. July 12, 1996)).

6 Compl. – ECF No. 1 at 3 (¶ 3).

7

Jackson Decl. – ECF No. 12-2 at 1–2 (¶¶ 3–4). On a motion to dismiss for improper venue, “the 

pleadings need not be accepted as true, and the court may consider facts outside of the pleadings.” 

Murphy v. Schneider Nat’l, Inc., 362 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted).

8 Compl. – ECF No. 1 at 5 (¶ 5).

9

Id.

Case 3:19-cv-03243-LB Document 21 Filed 07/26/19 Page 2 of 9
ORDER – No. 19-cv-03243-LB 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, Treaty No. 106-45 (the “Montreal Convention”),

against American Airlines for not less than $400,000.

10

Mr. Agasino does not allege that he booked his flight from California.11 Mr. Agasino does not 

allege that the flight departed from, arrived in, had a layover in, or otherwise had any connection 

to California.12 Mr. Agasino alleges that American Airlines generally operates numerous flights 

into and out of San Francisco International Airport (“SFO”), leases space at SFO, has hundreds of 

employees at SFO, and regularly solicits business from citizens in the Northern District of 

California13 — but he does not allege that he, his flight, or any allegations relating to his claim 

have any connection to California.14

ANALYSIS

1. Montreal Convention

Mr. Agasino contends that venue for this case is governed by the Montreal Convention. He 

argues that the Convention contains its own venue rules and that those rules supersede the general 

venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

15 Not so. The Convention does not govern venue within the 

United States.

The Convention states:

1. An action for damages must be brought, at the option of the plaintiff, in the 

territory of one of the States Parties, either before the court of the domicile of 

the carrier or of its principal place of business, or where it has a place of 

business through which the contract has been made or before the court at the 

place of destination.

 

10 Id. at 4.

11 See generally Compl. – ECF No. 1.

12 See generally id.

13 Compl. – ECF No. 1 at 2.

14 See generally Compl. – ECF No. 1; accord Jackson Decl. – ECF No. 12-2 at 1–2 (¶¶ 3–4)

(American Airlines attesting that Flight 60 never stopped at SFO); Pl. Opp’n – ECF No. 17 at 7 (Mr. 

Agasino agreeing that it was “never in dispute” that Flight 60 never stopped at SFO).

15 Pl. Opp’n – ECF No. 17 at 2–5.

Case 3:19-cv-03243-LB Document 21 Filed 07/26/19 Page 3 of 9
ORDER – No. 19-cv-03243-LB 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

2. In respect of damage resulting from the death or injury of a passenger, an action 

may be brought before one of the courts mentioned in paragraph 1 of this 

Article, or in the territory of a State Party in which at the time of the accident 

the passenger has his or her principal and permanent residence and to or from 

which the carrier operates services for the carriage of passengers by air, either 

on its own aircraft, or on another carrier’s aircraft pursuant to a commercial 

agreement, and in which that carrier its business of carriage of passengers by air 

from premises leased or owned by the carrier itself or another carrier with 

which it has a commercial agreement.

Montreal Convention ch. 3, art. 33. Courts have held that the Montreal Convention (and its 

predecessor, the Warsaw Convention) does not govern venue within a signatory “State Party.”

Avalon Techs., Inc. v. EMO-Trans, Inc., No. 14-14731, 2015 WL 1952287, at *5 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 

29, 2015) (“Numerous courts have considered the proper interpretation of Article 33 of the 

Montreal Convention and its predecessor under the Warsaw Convention. The consensus appears to 

be that Article 33 confers jurisdiction on the courts of a nation-state, rather than a particular court 

within that nation-state.”) (citing cases). As the Ninth Circuit explained in connection with the 

Montreal Convention’s predecessor, the Warsaw Convention,16 the Convention “does not . . . 

affect whether venue is proper and convenient in a particular federal court” or “alter a federal 

court’s power to transfer a case within the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).” Hosaka 

v. United Airlines, Inc., 305 F.3d 989, 1004 (9th Cir. 2002) (emphasis in original) (citing In re Air 

Crash Disaster Near New Orleans, 821 F.2d 1147, 1161 n.21 (5th Cir. 1987) (en banc), vacated 

on other grounds sub nom. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc. v. Pampin Lopez, 490 U.S. 1032 (1989)).

A “‘[p]laintiff’s choice of forum within [a] country is governed by the internal law [of that 

country], with all its intricacies and complexities, not by the [] Convention. Once a plaintiff files 

suit in a country with jurisdiction over his or her claims, that country’s procedural rules govern 

venue.’” Avalon, 2015 WL 1952287, at *5 (quoting Mertens v. Flying Tiger Line, Inc., 341 F.2d

 

16 Courts have held that the Montreal Convention should be “construed consistently with the precedent 

developed under the Warsaw Convention and its related instruments.” Avalon Techs., 2015 WL 

1952287, at *5 n.3 (quoting Byrd v. Comair, Inc. (In re Air Crash at Lexington), 501 F. Supp. 2d 902, 

908 (E.D. Ky. 2007)).

Case 3:19-cv-03243-LB Document 21 Filed 07/26/19 Page 4 of 9
ORDER – No. 19-cv-03243-LB 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

851, 855 (2d Cir. 1965), abrogated on other grounds by Chan v. Korean Air Lines, Ltd., 490 U.S. 

122 (1989)).

The Montreal Convention does not vest venue in this district.

17

2. 28 U.S.C. § 1391

Venue is nonetheless proper in this district under the United States’s standard procedural rules.

Within the United States, venue for civil actions filed in federal court is governed by 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1391, which states in relevant part that:

A federal civil action may be brought in:

(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents 

of the State in which the district is located;

(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving 

rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the 

action is situated; or

(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided 

in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s 

personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). For the purposes of venue, a corporate entity like American Airlines “shall 

be deemed to reside, if a defendant, in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to 

the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question[.]” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1391(c)(2).

American Airlines moved to dismiss for improper venue but did not move to dismiss for lack 

of personal jurisdiction.18 It therefore has waived any personal-jurisdiction arguments and is 

 

17 Mr. Agasino’s reliance on In re Air Crash at Lexington, 501 F. Supp. 2d 902, to argue that the 

Montreal Convention provides for venue in any federal court, is misplaced. That case — which, unlike 

this one, was being litigated in the federal district where the flight originated and where the accident

took place, id. at 905 — did not address venue. (Instead, it addressed whether the Warsaw or Montreal 

Conventions applied to the plaintiff’s claims at all in the first instance and whether they preempted 

state-law causes of action. Id.)

18 See Def. Mot. – ECF No. 12. American Airlines makes one passing reference to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) (personal jurisdiction), id. at 8, but its notice of motion refers only to Rule 

12(b)(3) (venue) and 28 U.S.C. § 1404, and not 12(b)(2), id. at 2, and its brief makes no arguments and 

cites no authorities addressing personal jurisdiction. Cf. N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-4(a)(5) (brief in support 

of motion must contain “[a]rgument by the party, citing pertinent authorities”).

Case 3:19-cv-03243-LB Document 21 Filed 07/26/19 Page 5 of 9
ORDER – No. 19-cv-03243-LB 6

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

subject to personal jurisdiction here with respect to this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g)(2), (h)(1)(A). 

Because American Airlines is subject to personal jurisdiction, venue is also proper under 28 

U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (c)(2). Cf. Ward v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, No. 18-

cv-07551-JCS, 2019 WL 2076991, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 10, 2019) (“As far as this Court is aware, 

every court to consider the issue has held that personal jurisdiction even based on waiver is 

sufficient to establish ‘residency’ for the purpose of § 1391(c)(2).”) (citing cases); AT&T Corp. v. 

Teliax, Inc., No. 16-cv-01914-WHO, 2016 WL 4241910, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2016) (“A 

party waives a defense based on lack of personal jurisdiction by omitting it from its first Rule 

12(b) motion. . . . [B]ecause [defendant] did not contest personal jurisdiction, it is therefore 

‘subject to personal jurisdiction’ in this district for the purposes of establishing venue.”) (citing 

cases and treatise); Markel Am. Ins. Co. v. Pac. Asian Enters., Inc., No. C-07-5749 SC, 2008 WL 

2951277, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2008) (“[Defendants], each having brought a Rule 12 motion 

without challenging personal jurisdiction, have waived that defense. As each of the Defendants is 

subject to personal jurisdiction in this district, each is considered to reside here for the purposes of 

venue.”) (citations omitted).

3. 28 U.S.C. § 1404

While venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, the court nonetheless transfers this case to the 

Northern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. § 1404.

3.1 Governing Law

“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 or to 

any district or division to which all parties have consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

“A motion under section 1404(a) must first show that the transferee district is one where the 

action might have been brought.” EEOC v. United Airlines, Inc., No. C 09-2469 PJH, 2009 WL 

7323651, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)). “The movant must 

demonstrate that the alternate district would have subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, 

and proper venue.” Id. (citing Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 343–44 (1960)). “If the transferee 

Case 3:19-cv-03243-LB Document 21 Filed 07/26/19 Page 6 of 9
ORDER – No. 19-cv-03243-LB 7

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

district is one in which the action might have been brought, the court assesses various factors 

related to convenience and the interests of justice.” Id. (citing Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 

F.3d 495, 498–99 (9th Cir. 2000)). “Courts apply a multi-factor balancing test to determine if

transfer would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and would be in the interests of 

justice.” Id. (citing Jones, 211 F.3d at 498–99). Factors relevant to this case that the court may 

consider include:

(1) the plaintiff’s choice of forum; (2) the convenience of the parties; (3) the 

convenience of the witnesses; (4) the relative ease of access to the evidence; (5) the 

familiarity of each forum with the applicable law; (6) the feasibility of 

consolidation with other claims; (7) any local interest in the controversy; and 

(8) the relative court congestion and time to trial in each forum.

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

3.2 Application

This case could have been brought in the Northern District of Texas. The Northern District of 

Texas has as much subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim brought under the Montreal 

Convention as this court does, and American Airlines is headquartered in the Northern District of 

Texas and thus is subject to personal jurisdiction there (which means that venue is proper there as 

well).

Additionally, all but one of the factors in the multi-factor balancing test weigh favor transfer to 

the Northern District of Texas (or are neutral).

The one factor that could even partially weigh against transfer is the plaintiff’s choice of 

forum. But where, as here, “a plaintiff does not reside in the forum, . . . . the operative facts have 

not occurred within the forum of original selection[,] and that forum has no particular interest in 

the parties or the subject matter, the plaintiff’s choice is entitled to only minimal consideration.”

Stambanis v. TBWA Worldwide, Inc., No. 19-cv-00821-TSH, 2019 WL 1979949, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 

May 3, 2019) (quoting Pac. Car & Foundry Co. v. Pence, 403 F.2d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 1968)).

The convenience-of-the-parties factor favors transfer. American Airlines is headquartered in 

the Northern District of Texas, and it would be more convenient for it to litigate there. Mr. 

Agasino argues that American Airlines can fly its employees from Texas to this district to litigate 

Case 3:19-cv-03243-LB Document 21 Filed 07/26/19 Page 7 of 9
ORDER – No. 19-cv-03243-LB 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

this case.19“[T]he fact that [American Airlines] operates an airline does not eliminate the expense 

and disruption associated with having to transport witnesses to California.” Cf. United Airlines, 

2009 WL 7323651, at *3. “[E]very seat taken by a witness is one that cannot be sold to a 

customer.” Cf. id. “Moreover, the company would likely suffer a loss of productivity and

disruption due to the time it would take for each employee to travel to California.” Cf. id. “In 

addition, [American Airlines] would be forced to pay for other travel expenses, such as hotels, 

taxis, and meals.” Cf. id. By contrast, the Northern District of Texas is no less convenient than this 

district is for Mr. Agasino. Mr. Agasino does not live here and, in filing this case here, made the 

choice to litigate outside his home district. He affirmatively says he has no objection to traveling 

to this district to litigate this case.

20 If he can travel here, he can travel there as well.

The convenience-of-the-witnesses and the relative-ease-of-access-to-the-evidence factors favor

transfer. American Airlines is headquartered in the Northern District of Texas. The flight where 

Mr. Agasino was injured landed in the Northern District of Texas. There may be relevant 

witnesses and evidence in the Northern District of Texas. By contrast, there has been no showing 

that there is a single witness or a single piece of evidence in this district, which has no connection 

to any fact in this case.

21

The familiarity-of-each-forum-with-the-applicable-law factor is neutral. The Northern District 

of Texas is equally familiar with federal law as this court is.

The feasibility-of-consolidation-with-other-claims factor is inapplicable and thus neutral.

The local-interest-in-the-controversy factor favors transfer. American Airlines is 

headquartered in the Northern District of Texas. The flight where Mr. Agasino was injured landed 

 

19 Pl. Opp’n – ECF No. 17 at 6.

20 Id. at 9.

21 Mr. Agasino says that his doctors, whom he intends to call as witnesses, are located in the District of

Connecticut. Pl. Opp’n – ECF No. 17 at 9. He also says, however, that he expects that all of his 

doctors will testify through video depositions. Id. Given that he is willing to have them testify through 

video depositions in any event, Mr. Agasino has not established that this factor weighs more heavily in 

favor of transfer to the District of Connecticut than to the Northern District of Texas — and this factor 

certainly does not weigh in favor of leaving the case here, where none of Mr. Agasino’s doctors are 

located.

Case 3:19-cv-03243-LB Document 21 Filed 07/26/19 Page 8 of 9
ORDER – No. 19-cv-03243-LB 9

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

in the Northern District of Texas. The Northern District of Texas may have a local interest in the

controversy. By contrast, this district has no relation to and no local interest in the controversy.

Neither party has made a showing regarding the relevant court congestion and time to trial, and 

this factor appears neutral.22

As all factors (other than the minimal weight given to Mr. Agasino’s choice in filing this case

in a district where he does not live and that has no relation to this case) are either neutral or weigh 

in favor of transfer, the court grants American Airlines’s motion to transfer this case.

CONCLUSION

The court denies American Airlines’s motion to dismiss but grants its motion to transfer and 

transfers this case to the Northern District of Texas.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2019

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

 

22 The Federal Court Management Statistics for March 2019 do not show a significant difference in 

congestion between the Northern District of Texas and this district.

Case 3:19-cv-03243-LB Document 21 Filed 07/26/19 Page 9 of 9