Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03802/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03802-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

WRI WEST GATE SOUTH, L.P.,

Plaintiff,

v.

RELIANCE MEDIAWORKS (USA) INC., 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-03802-JSC 

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

TO TRANSFER TO OAKLAND 

DIVISION

Re: Dkt. No. 27

Plaintiff WRI West Gate South L.P. (“WRI”) filed this action against Defendant Reliance 

Mediaworks, Ltd. (“Reliance”) alleging breach of contract and breach of guaranty claims related 

to a lease agreement between Plaintiff and one of Defendant’s subsidiaries. Defendant moved to 

dismiss for improper venue, or alternatively to transfer for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. §

1404(a) based on a forum selection clause in the parties’ lease agreement. (Dkt. No. 27.) Because 

neither parties’ briefs addressed the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Atlantic Marine 

Construction Co. v. United States District Court, 134 S. Ct. 568 (2013), the Court ordered the 

parties to submit supplemental briefing. Having considered the parties’ briefs, including their 

supplemental filings, and having had the benefit of oral argument on April 16, 2015, the Court 

construes the motion as a motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(b) and DENIES the motion.

BACKGROUND

In December 2009, Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Big Cinemas for a movie 

theater in Fremont, California. (Complaint at ¶ 6.) Defendant, Big Cinema’s parent company, 

guaranteed the full performance of Big Cinemas under the lease agreement. (Id. at ¶¶ 14-16.) 

Plaintiff alleges that over the course of the lease Big Cinemas was habitually late with its rent and 

other payments and ceased all rent payments in February 2014. (Id. at ¶ 18.) Plaintiff 

subsequently filed an unlawful detainer action against Big Cinema in the Alameda County 

Case 3:14-cv-03802-JD Document 44 Filed 04/21/15 Page 1 of 4
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

Superior Court seeking to reclaim possession of the property, and obtained a judgment in its favor 

in June 2014. (Id. at ¶ 22.) This damages action followed.

The Lease’s forum selection clause provides that “[t]his Lease shall be construed in 

accordance with the laws of the State in which the Shopping Center is located, and the County in 

which the Shopping Center is located shall be the venue for any litigation arising from this Lease.” 

(Dkt. No. 29-1 at p. 14 § 25.05.) Defendant initially argued that venue was improper in federal 

court in light of the forum selection clause and sought dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(3), or alternatively, transfer to the Oakland Division of the Northern District of 

California under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) or § 1404(a). Plaintiff opposed the motion contending that 

Defendant waived any objection to venue, and in any event, the parties’ forum selection clause 

allows for venue in either a state or federal court within Alameda County. Because neither 

parties’ briefs addressed the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Atlantic Marine Construction Co. 

v. United States District Court, 134 S. Ct. 568 (2013), regarding forum selection clauses, the Court 

ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing. In their supplemental briefing, the parties’ 

positions altered significantly. Plaintiff abandoned its waiver argument and Defendant abandoned 

its argument in favor of dismissal, and instead, now only requests transfer to the Oakland division

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1404(a). (Dkt. Nos. 41 & 42.)

DISCUSSION

Defendant’s supplemental brief abandons any argument in favor of dismissal and instead 

requests transfer to the Oakland division under Section 1404(a). Defendant concedes that there is 

no practical difference to the parties in having the case assigned to the Oakland division rather 

than the San Francisco division; rather, Defendant seeks assignment to the Oakland division to 

“give effect to the parties’ forum selection clause.” Because Defendant’s motion now only seeks 

transfer to the Oakland division it is more properly considered a motion under Rule 1404(b) which 

provides that “[u]pon motion, consent or stipulation of all parties, any action...may be transferred, 

in the discretion of the court, from the division in which pending to any other division in the same 

district.” See also N.D. Local Rule 3-2 (“[w]henever a Judge finds, upon the Judge’s own motion 

or the motion of any party, that a civil action has not been assigned to the proper division within 

Case 3:14-cv-03802-JD Document 44 Filed 04/21/15 Page 2 of 4
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

this district in accordance with this rule, or that the convenience of parties and witnesses and the 

interests of justice will be served by transferring the action to a different division within the 

district, the Judge may order such transfer, subject to the provisions of the Court’s Assignment 

Plan.”). Accordingly, the Court will construe it as a motion under 1404(b).

1

A motion to change venue to another division of the same district rests in the discretion of 

the court. See Costa v. Wirtgen Int’l GmbH & Co. KG, No. 12-05669, 2013 WL 1636043, at *1 

(N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2013). Here, the Defendant concedes that the only reason that it is requesting 

transfer to the Oakland division is because of the language of the forum selection clause; notably, 

Defendant does not advance any policy reasons in favor of its argument such as a concern that it 

might waive its right to enforce other provisions of the agreement at issue if it agreed to have the 

case heard in San Francisco rather than Oakland (which it would not). Nor does Defendant argue 

that it makes any difference to the parties whether the case is heard here rather than Oakland—the 

jury pool is the same regardless. Thus, the transfer would be based on a technicality of language 

with respect to the contract. 

The Court concludes that to transfer the case under these circumstances would undermine 

the Northern District of California’s Court Assignment Plan. The Plan provides that “all civil 

actions and proceedings for which this district is the proper venue shall be assigned by the Clerk to 

a Courthouse serving the county in which the action arises.” N.D. Cal. L. R. 3-2(c). Further, “all 

civil actions which arise in the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, 

Marin, Mendocino, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo or Sonoma shall be assigned to the San 

Francisco Division or the Oakland Division.” Id. at 3-2(d). Plaintiff filed this action in the 

 1 Although, given Defendant’s arguments, the Court construes the motion as a motion to transfer 

under Section 1404(b) rather than a motion under 1404(a) or the doctrine forum non conveniens, 

even if the Court were to analyze it under traditional forum non conveniens principals as set forth 

in Atlantic Marine, the Court would conclude that extraordinary circumstances counsel against 

transfer or dismissal. See Atl. Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Texas, 134 S. 

Ct. 568, 581 (2013) (“Only under extraordinary circumstances unrelated to the convenience of the 

parties should a § 1404(a) motion be denied.”). To grant the motion here based on the technicality 

of the forum selection clause would undermine the Court’s Intradistrict Assignment Plan 

discussed supra and open the door for parties to routinely division-shop as it were. Id. at n.6 

(noting that courts should consider whether public interest factors such as “the administrative 

difficulties flowing from court congestion” weigh against transfer or dismissal).

Case 3:14-cv-03802-JD Document 44 Filed 04/21/15 Page 3 of 4
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

Oakland division, but it was reassigned to the San Francisco division in accordance with the 

assignment plan. While the Court has the authority under Section 1404(b) to transfer the case 

back to the Oakland division, it declines to do so here given Defendant’s inability to advance any 

substantive justification to deviate from the assignment plan and the court’s institutional need to 

maintain the integrity of its assignment plan. Defendant’s motion is therefore denied.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer venue under 

Section 1404(a) is construed as a motion to transfer under Section 1404(b), and so construed, is

DENIED.

The parties shall appear for a Case Management Conference on May 7, 2015 with the Joint 

Case Management Conference Statement due the week before. 

Defendant’s answer is due May 18, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 21, 2015

______________________________________

 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:14-cv-03802-JD Document 44 Filed 04/21/15 Page 4 of 4