Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00654/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00654-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

 The City of San Francisco and the County of Los Angeles are

also named defendants. The defendants who filed the pending

motion, however, assert that Los Angeles County does not oppose the

motion. Def.’s Mot. to Transfer at 6. Plaintiff also sues Does 1

to 50 who are “legally responsible in some manner for the events

and happenings herein referred to.” It is unlikely that the

pleading is sufficient. See, e.g., Butler v. Rober Enter., Inc.,

208 F.R.D. 621 (E.D. Cal. 2002). 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN CANINE FOUNDATION,

NO. CIV. S-06-654 LKK/DAD

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

BEN SUN, D.M.V., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Pending on the August 7, 2006 law and motion calendar is a

motion for transfer of venue filed by Ben Sun, the California

Department of Health Services, the California Health and Human

Services Agency and Bill Lockyer (“defendants”).1 Plaintiff, 

The American Canine Foundation, seeks a declaratory judgment that

Case 2:06-cv-00654-LKK -DAD Document 59 Filed 07/27/06 Page 1 of 10
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

 SB 861 is codified in California Food and Agriculture Code

§ 31683 and California Health and Safety Code §§ 122330-122331.

3

 Citations to “Amend. Compl.” refer to plaintiff’s first

amended complaint filed on June 2, 2006. On July 12, 2006,

plaintiff filed another complaint labeled “first amended complaint”

although it was the second amended complaint filed in the case.

On July 16, this court issued an order striking the complaint for

failing to comply with Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure as plaintiff did not obtain leave of court or the consent

of the defendant to file another amended complaint. On July 24,

plaintiff filed a stipulation signed by the parties agreeing to

allow plaintiff to file yet another amended complaint, labeled

“second amended complaint” despite being the fourth complaint filed

in the case.

2

California Senate Bill 861 (“SB 861"); San Francisco Ordinance 268-

05; and Title 10 of the Los Angeles County Code are

unconstitutional.2 The court decides the motion based on the

papers filed herein and without oral argument. 

I. 

BACKGROUND FACTS

A. SB 861

Senate Bill 861 allows cities and counties to enact breedspecific spay, neuter and breeding requirements for animals. Any

city or county that enacts such an ordinance must compile

statistics regarding the number of biting incidents and report them

to the State Public Health Veterinarian, defendant Sun, who is

employed by the California Department of Health Services. Amend.

Compl. at ¶ 7.3

Cities and counties have subsequently enacted ordinances

pursuant to SB 861. San Francisco ordinance 268-05 makes it a

misdemeanor to own certain breeds of dogs unless they have been

Case 2:06-cv-00654-LKK -DAD Document 59 Filed 07/27/06 Page 2 of 10
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

spayed or neutered. Amend. Compl. at ¶ 18. Title 10 of the Los

Angeles County Code was amended to require the sterilization of

certain breeds of dogs, with punishments of a fine and the

possibility of jail time for noncompliance. Id.

B. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of SB 861 and the

related city ordinances. Plaintiff specifically contends that SB

861 was intended to label certain classes of dogs as potentially

“dangerous” or “vicious” without any scientific basis and without

regard to the individual characteristics of the specific dog. 

Amend. Compl. at ¶ 17. Plaintiff alleges ten claims: (1) the

Federal Animal Welfare Act preempts SB 861 and the San Francisco

and Los Angeles ordinances, (2) violation of procedural due

process, (3) violations of substantive due process and equal

protection, (4) SB 861 constitutes an ex post facto law, (5)

violation of the Takings Clause, (6) violation of the Federal

Commerce Clause, (7) infringement on the freedom of contract, (8)

unconstitutional vagueness, (9) violation of freedom of

association, and (10) violations of the California Constitution.

Amend. Compl. at ¶¶ 28-63.

C. THE CHAKO CASE

Three months before plaintiff’s complaint was filed, a similar

suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern

District of California. Coalition of Human Advocates for K9's and

Owners (“CHAKO”) brought suit against the State of California,

Attorney General Lockyer, the City and County of San Francisco, San

Case 2:06-cv-00654-LKK -DAD Document 59 Filed 07/27/06 Page 3 of 10
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

4

 The Northern District case is Coalition of Human Advocates

for K9's and Owners v. State of California, et al., No. 06-1887

MMC.

4

Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and San Francisco Animal Care and

Control and its director, Carl Friedman.4

 Def.’s Req. For Judicial

Notice, Ex. A. The suit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief

on the grounds that SB 861 and the San Francisco ordinances

requiring the sterilization of certain dogs are in violation of

several federal and state laws. The CHAKO case, like the present

case, alleges violations of the Fourteenth Amendment of the

Constitution, the Commerce Clause and the California Constitution.

Id. The CHAKO plaintiff also alleges violations of the Americans

With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

II. 

STANDARDS FOR MOTION TO TRANSFER

Venue is proper in any district “in which a substantial

part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim

occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) (1999). Section 1391(b)(2)

does not require that a majority of the events have occurred in

the district where suit is filed, nor does it require that the

events in that district predominate. Rodriguez v. California

Highway Patrol, 89 F.Supp.2d 1131, 1136 (N.D. Cal. 2000). All

that plaintiff needs to show is that a substantial part of the

events giving rise to his claim occurred in the Eastern District

of California. See id. 

////

Case 2:06-cv-00654-LKK -DAD Document 59 Filed 07/27/06 Page 4 of 10
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

5

Although venue may be proper in the Eastern District, 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. 

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). 

Defendants must make a strong showing of inconvenience to

warrant upsetting plaintiff's choice of forum. Decker Coal Co.

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

To obtain transfer, the court must consider both private and

public interest factors affecting convenience of parties. Id.

Private factors include the "relative ease of access to

sources of proof; availability of compulsory process for

attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of

willing witnesses; possibility of view of premises, if view

would be appropriate to the action; and all other practical

problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and

inexpensive." Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508

(1947). 

Public factors include "the administrative difficulties

flowing from court congestion; the ‘local interest in having

localized controversies decided at home'; the interest in having

the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with

the law that must govern the action; the avoidance of

unnecessary problems in conflict of laws, or in the application

of foreign law; and the unfairness of burdening citizens in an

unrelated forum with jury duty." Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno,

Case 2:06-cv-00654-LKK -DAD Document 59 Filed 07/27/06 Page 5 of 10
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

6

454 U.S. 235, 241 n.6 (1981)(quoting Gulf Oil Corp., 330 U.S. at

509).

It is also well-established that “[t]o permit a situation

in which two cases involving precisely the same issues are

simultaneously pending in different District Courts leads to the

wastefulness of time, energy and money that § 1404(a) was

designed to prevent” and transfer is especially appropriate in

that situation. Continental Grain Co. v. The FBL-585, 364 U.S.

19, 26 (1960).

III. 

ANALYSIS

A. VENUE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT

The court must first determine whether the Northern

District is a district in which the suit “might have been

brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335,

343-344 (1960). A plaintiff’s choice of forum should be given

great weight. Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir.

1987). That said, if venue can lie in another forum, provided

the forum is convenient to the parties and witnesses and serves

the interests of justice, transfer is proper under § 1404(a). 

For the reasons explained herein, the court determines that

venue is proper in the Northern District. 

Plaintiff brings suit against state agencies and against

the city and county of San Francisco, seeking a declaration that

San Francisco Ordinance 268-05 is unconstitutional. 

////

Case 2:06-cv-00654-LKK -DAD Document 59 Filed 07/27/06 Page 6 of 10
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

7

Accordingly, “a substantial part of the events . . . giving rise

to the claim,” as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), occurred in

the Northern District where the San Francisco ordinance was

passed and is currently being enforced. Since, as plaintiff

points out, SB 861 applies throughout the state, it applies

equally in the Northern District as it does in the Eastern

District. The Northern District would have personal

jurisdiction over all defendants as they are all residents of

California. Subject matter jurisdiction would also be proper in

the Northern District as the case alleges violations of federal

law.

B. INTERESTS OF JUSTICE

The interests of justice can be decisive even if witness

and party convenience weigh against transfer. Pratt v. Rowland,

769 F.Supp. 1128, 1133 (N.D. Cal. 1991). An important

consideration in determining whether the interests of justice

dictate a transfer of venue is the pendency of a related case in

the transferee forum. A. J. Industries, Inc. v. United States

Dist. Court for Cent. Dist., 503 F.2d 384, 389 (9th Cir. 1974)

(“pendency of an action in another district is important” in

determining whether to transfer). In the case at bar, the

interests of justice clearly weigh in favor of transfer. 

It is well-established that “[t]o permit a situation in

which two cases involving precisely the same issues are

simultaneously pending in different District Courts leads to the

wastefulness of time, energy and money that § 1404(a) was

Case 2:06-cv-00654-LKK -DAD Document 59 Filed 07/27/06 Page 7 of 10
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

8

designed to prevent.” Continental Grain Co., 364 U.S. at 26.

The interests of justice “weigh particularly heavily” in

favor of a transfer due to the pendency of the CHAKO case. The

CHAKO case in the Northern District involves “precisely the same

issues” as the case at bar. Id. at 26. Both involve the same

California state statute and San Francisco ordinance and both

seek a declaration that the laws are unconstitutional. The

state of California defendants have filed a motion to dismiss in

both the CHAKO and this case based on Eleventh Amendment

sovereign immunity. The issues involving the validity of the

statute will likely be the same in both cases despite the

existence of some differences in the causes of action pled and

the defendants named. It would save judicial resources, time

and money to have these similar cases tried in the same

district. 

C. CONVENIENCE OF THE PARTIES AND WITNESSES

The court must also consider the convenience of the parties

and witnesses. 28 U.S.C. § 1404; A. J. Industries, 503 F.2d at

386. Plaintiff contends that of the six parties named in the

instant suit, four reside in Sacramento. Amend. Compl. at ¶ 5. 

The remaining two defendants are in San Francisco and Los

Angeles respectively. Plaintiff also asserts that it

anticipates to call non-party witnesses located in the

metropolitan Sacramento area, including members of the

legislature, local dog breeders, and dog rescuers. Pl.’s Opp’n

to Mot. to Transfer at 4. 

Case 2:06-cv-00654-LKK -DAD Document 59 Filed 07/27/06 Page 8 of 10
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

9

The court determines, however, that convenience of the

parties also weighs in favor of transfer. The four Sacramento

defendants join in the motion to transfer to the Northern

District. Therefore, the court assumes transfer would not

inconvenience them. Since a transfer would take the case to San

Francisco, transfer would be geographically convenient to five

of the six defendants. The remaining defendant, the County of

Los Angeles, will be required to travel regardless of whether

the case proceeds in the Eastern or Northern District. The same

is true for plaintiff, a Washington state based organization. 

Therefore, transfer is not defeated by the convenience of the

parties.

Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest that the Eastern

District is the only convenient forum in terms of location of

witnesses and evidence. Given that plaintiff is challenging a

San Francisco ordinance, evidence and witnesses pertaining to

the passing of that ordinance are likely to be located in the

Northern District. While SB 861 was passed by the California

legislature which sits in Sacramento, there is nothing to

suggest that it would be difficult for plaintiff or the state of

California to present its evidence in the Northern District. 

Since there is currently a pending case in the Northern

District, transferring the case there would allow overlapping

witnesses and parties in both this and the CHAKO case to appear

in only one forum and court. 

////

Case 2:06-cv-00654-LKK -DAD Document 59 Filed 07/27/06 Page 9 of 10
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

10

IV. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDERS

Defendant’s motion to transfer venue is GRANTED and the

above-captioned case is hereby TRANSFERRED to the United States

District Court for the Northern District of California. All

previously set dates, including the hearing on August 7th, 2006,

are hereby VACATED. All pending motions and requests for

stipulation should be re-noticed in the Northern District of

California. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 25, 2006

Case 2:06-cv-00654-LKK -DAD Document 59 Filed 07/27/06 Page 10 of 10