Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02116/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02116-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

EXACT IDENTIFICATION

CORPORATION,

NO. CIV. S-05-02116 FCD PAN

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

FELDMAN SHERB & CO., P.C., a

Corporation, GRASSI & COMPANY,

a Corporation, and DOES 1

through 20, inclusive,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This matter comes before the court on defendants’ Feldman

Sherb & Co., P.C., (“Feldman”) and Grassi & Co.’s (“Grassi”)

motion to transfer venue on convenience grounds. Plaintiff Exact

Identification Corporation (“Exact ID”) does not oppose the

Case 2:05-cv-02116-FCD-PAN Document 13 Filed 01/31/06 Page 1 of 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

Because oral argument will not be of material 1

assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. 

E.D. Cal. Local Rule 78-230(h).

Defendants did not submit declarations to substantiate 2

the facts cited in their memorandum of points and authorities. 

However, because plaintiff wholly unopposed defendants’ motion,

the court will accept the facts presented by the defendants in

their memorandum of points and authorities as true for the

purposes of this motion.

2

motion. For the reasons set forth below, defendants’ motion is 1

GRANTED.

This suit arises out of a contract between the parties for

an audit of Exact ID’s business and accounting records.2

Plaintiff brings claims for breach of contract, negligence,

intentional interference with contractual relations, and

intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. 

Defendant Feldman is a New York corporation with its principal

place of business in New York, New York. Defendant Grassi is a

New York corporation with its principal place of business in Lake

Success, New York. Exact ID is a Nevada corporation with its

principal place of business in Lake Oswego, Oregon. Plaintiff

filed this action in the Sacramento County Superior Court, State

of California in September 2005. Defendant Feldman removed the

action to this court in October 2005 on the basis of diversity

jurisdiction. Defendants Feldman and Grassi subsequently filed

this motion to transfer venue of the case to the United States

District Court for the Southern District of New York on

convenience grounds. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court may “for the

convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice

. . . transfer any civil action to any other district where it

Case 2:05-cv-02116-FCD-PAN Document 13 Filed 01/31/06 Page 2 of 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

3

might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). A defendant

moving to transfer venue under § 1404(a) must therefore satisfy

both of the following requirements: (1) the transferee district

is one in which the action might have been brought originally;

and (2) transfer will enhance the convenience of the parties and

witnesses, and is in the interests of justice. See Van Dusen v.

Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964). In considering the second

requirement, the court employs a case by case analysis, which may

include evaluation of the following factors: (1) the plaintiff’s

choice of forum; (2) the respective parties’ contacts with the

forum; (3) the availability of compulsory process; (4) the

convenience of parties and witnesses; and (5) judicial economy. 

See Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th

Cir. 2000).

Venue is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Section 1391

provides that “a civil action wherein jurisdiction is filed only

on diversity of citizenship may . . . be brought only in [] a

judicial district where any Defendant resides, if all Defendants

reside in the same state . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (West 2006). 

Both defendants reside in the State of New York. Defendant

Feldman’s principal place of business, and residence for the

purpose of venue, is in New York, New York. Therefore, the first

requirement for a venue transfer pursuant to § 1404(a) is met

because plaintiff could have brought this action originally in

the United States District Court for the Southern District of New

York. 

Considering defendant’s showing in light of the factors

described in Jones, the court finds defendants have demonstrated

Case 2:05-cv-02116-FCD-PAN Document 13 Filed 01/31/06 Page 3 of 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

Plaintiff forfeited his right to do business in 3

California in 2002. 

4

that transfer is warranted. First, while courts generally afford

considerable weight to plaintiff’s choice of forums, the

deference is considerably less where plaintiff does not reside in

the forum where the action was commenced. Lou v. Belzberg, 834

F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987). In this case, plaintiff was

authorized to do business in California, but was never a 3

resident of California. Thus, none of the parties are residents

of California nor have their principal places of business in

California. Indeed, the plaintiff is no longer authorized to

conduct business in California. Further, plaintiff does not

oppose transfer to the Southern District of New York. These

facts weight in favor of transfer from this district. 

Second, the major witnesses are from defendant corporations. 

The witnesses that will be compelled to provide discovery and

appear for depositions and trial are from New York, where

defendants reside and are domiciled. A majority of the documents

relevant to the action are located with defendants in New York. 

These facts also weigh in favor of transfer from this district to

the Southern District of New York. 

Finally, the interests of justice favor transfer from this

district. There is little, if any, local interest in this case. 

The only contact with this forum is that plaintiff was authorized

to do business in California for a brief time. Therefore, there

is little reason to adjudicate this matter in a California forum.

/////

////

Case 2:05-cv-02116-FCD-PAN Document 13 Filed 01/31/06 Page 4 of 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

5

For the reasons set forth herein, defendants’ motion to

transfer venue to the United States District Court for the

Southern District of New York is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 27, 2006 

 /s/Frank C. Damrell, Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02116-FCD-PAN Document 13 Filed 01/31/06 Page 5 of 5