Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01313/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01313-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 450
Nature of Suit: Interstate Commerce
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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 

WO NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Triple Buy LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Dependable Highway Express Incorporated, 

et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-15-01313-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 At issue is Defendant Dependable Highway Express, Inc. dba The Dependable 

Companies and Dependable Logistics Solutions’ Motion to Transfer Venue to the Central 

District of California Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (Doc. 15, Mot.), to which Plaintiff 

Triple Buy LLC filed a Response (Doc. 17, Resp.), and Defendant filed a Reply (Doc. 19, 

Reply). The Court finds this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See 

LRCiv 7.2(f). For the following reasons, the Court will deny the Motion. 

I. BACKGROUND 

This case arises out of a shipment from Fremont, California to Phoenix, Arizona 

of 2,080 laptop computers from Asus Computer International (the “Shipment”). Triple 

Buy alleges that it purchased the 2,080 laptop computers from Asus on or around March 

5, 2014, and on or about March 6, 2014, it accepted Dependable Highway Express 

(“DHE”)’s offer to deliver the laptops and paid DHE $2,200.00. Triple Buy alleges that 

several hours before the laptops were to be picked up in Fremont, California, DHE 

informed Triple Buy that it brokered out the delivery of the laptops to an outside carrier. 

Case 2:15-cv-01313-JJT Document 24 Filed 01/15/16 Page 1 of 7
- 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 

On March 6, 2014, a truck owned by Westline Freight, Inc. (“Westline”), and driven by 

Bayron Jose Vallecillo, arrived to pick up the Shipment. On or about March 7, 2014, 

while en route to Phoenix, Mr. Vallecillo stopped to have a meal in Ontario, California, 

and parked the truck in the parking lot of the restaurant. When he returned, the truck was 

missing. The truck was recovered the next day, but the laptops were missing. 

 Plaintiff initially filed this case in Arizona state court alleging the following 

claims: 1) fraud against DHE; 2) negligent misrepresentation against DHE; 3) breach of 

contract and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing against DHE; 4) broker 

negligence against DHE; 5) negligence against DHE and Westline; and 6) statutory 

liability under 49 U.S.C. § 14706 against DHE and Westline. (Doc. 1-1, Ex. A, Compl.) 

On July 14, 2015, DHE filed a Notice of Removal (Doc. 1). As of Plaintiff’s Response to 

this Motion, Plaintiff had not yet served Westline. The Court now resolves Defendant 

DHE’s Motion to Transfer Venue. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

 Section 1404(a) provides that “[f]or the convenience of the 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The purpose of this 

statute “is to prevent the waste of time, energy and money and to protect litigants, 

witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense.” Airbus DS 

Optronics GmbH v. Nivisys LLC, No. CV-14-02399-PHX-JAT, 2015 WL 3439143, at *2 

(D. Ariz. May 28, 2015) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). It is the 

defendant’s burden to show transfer is warranted and “[t]he defendant must make a 

strong showing of inconvenience to warrant upsetting the plaintiff’s choice of forum.” 

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

also Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2000).

 Courts employ a two-step analysis when determining whether a transfer is proper. 

Airbus DS Optronics, 2015 WL 3439143, at *2. First, a court considers whether “the case 

could have been brought in the forum to which the moving party seeks to transfer the 

Case 2:15-cv-01313-JJT Document 24 Filed 01/15/16 Page 2 of 7
- 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 

case.” Id. In order to meet this requirement, the court in the proposed transferee district 

“must have subject matter jurisdiction and proper venue, and the defendant must be 

amenable to service of process issued by that court.” Id. “Second, a court must consider 

whether the proposed transferee district is a more suitable choice of venue based upon the 

convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice.” Id. The Ninth 

Circuit has set forth factors that a court may consider in making this determination: 

(1) the location where the relevant agreements were negotiated and 

executed, (2) the state that is most familiar with the governing law, (3) the 

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

forum, (5) the contacts relating to the plaintiff’s cause of action in the 

chosen forum, (6) the differences in the costs of litigation in the two 

forums, (7) the availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of 

unwilling non-party witnesses, and (8) the ease of access to sources of 

proof. 

Jones, 211 F.3d at 498–99. 

III. ANALYSIS 

 Defendant moves to transfer this action to the Central District of California 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Plaintiff does not challenge the motion to change venue 

on the basis that the Central District of California is not a proper venue for this lawsuit. 

(Resp. at 2.) Accordingly, the Court limits its analysis to whether the convenience of the 

parties and witnesses and interests of justice justify a change of venue. 

A. Location of Agreement Negotiation 

 Defendant contends that this factor favors transfer because the transaction at issue 

was negotiated electronically and the paperwork for the transaction was generated in 

California. (Mot. at 10.) The Court disagrees. Because the agreement was negotiated 

electronically, and each party negotiated from their own respective offices in California 

and Arizona, there is no reason to believe that transfer to California would aid in more 

efficiently dealing with evidentiary issues. The Court finds that this factor is neutral. 

Case 2:15-cv-01313-JJT Document 24 Filed 01/15/16 Page 3 of 7
- 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 

B. State Most Familiar with Governing Law 

This case involves Arizona state law claims and a federal claim under 49 U.S.C. 

§ 14706, the Carmack Amendment. This factor weighs in favor of not transferring the 

case because the District of Arizona is more likely to be familiar with the governing law 

in the state law claims. 

C. Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum 

 When a plaintiff brings suit in his or her home forum, plaintiff’s choice of forum is 

generally accorded great weight. Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Plaintiff originally brought suit against Defendant in Arizona state court. (See Compl.) 

Plaintiff is an Arizona company with its only office in Gilbert, Arizona, and Plaintiff 

resides in and has a legitimate connection to Arizona. See Leyvas v. Bezy, No. CV07-

1032-PHX-SMM, 2008 WL 2026276, at *5 (D. Ariz. May 9, 2008). This factor weighs in 

favor of not transferring the case. 

D. Respective Parties’ Contacts with the Forum 

Defendant contends that this factor weighs in favor of transfer because 

Defendant’s four main witnesses reside in California and Plaintiff will likely rely on 

California witnesses. (Mot. at 7–8.) Defendant also has contacts in Arizona because 

Defendant has an office in Phoenix. (Resp. at 3; Ex. B.) Plaintiff is an Arizona company 

and the Shipment was to be delivered to Plaintiff’s sole office in Gilbert, Arizona. 

Plaintiff states that all of its witnesses are in Arizona, but does not state how many 

witnesses it will call or the substance of its witnesses’ testimony. (See Resp. at 5.) It does 

not appear that Plaintiff has any contacts in California. 

 The relative convenience to witnesses is often considered the most important 

factor in resolving a motion to transfer under § 1404(a). Airbus DS Optronics, 2015 WL 

3439143, at *4 (internal quotations omitted). In considering whether the convenience of 

the particular venue to witnesses weighs in favor of transfer, the court must consider the 

number of witnesses each party has, their location, and the importance of the witnesses. 

Leyvas, 2008 WL 2026276, at *3. 

Case 2:15-cv-01313-JJT Document 24 Filed 01/15/16 Page 4 of 7
- 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 

 Defendant’s four main witnesses, who all reside in California, are employees who 

were involved in the arrangement for the transportation of the Shipment. (Mot. at 7.) 

Although Plaintiff did not provide any information about the identity or number of 

witnesses it has in Arizona or what they will testify to, Plaintiff’s witnesses are likely to 

be employees whose testimony would be of the same importance of Defendant’s 

employee witnesses. Moreover, Defendant’s witnesses are not so many in number or so 

far in distance as to create a significant burden upon Defendant. Accordingly, the Court 

finds that this factor is neutral. 

E. Contacts Relating to the Plaintiff’s Cause of Action in Arizona 

 Neither party directly addresses this factor. Although the alleged theft of the 

Shipment giving rise to this litigation occurred in California, because the negotiations for 

the Shipment involved both California and Arizona companies, this factor is neutral. 

F. Differences in the Cost of Litigation in the Two Forums 

Defendant contends that the costs of litigation will be higher in Arizona than in 

California because Defendant is a resident of California and the relevant witnesses are 

located in California. (Mot. at 8.) Plaintiff is similarly situated, however, because it is a 

resident of Arizona and its employee witnesses are located in Arizona. The costs of 

litigation would only shift to Plaintiff were the Court to transfer the case to California. 

The Court notes that it is unclear whether any California-based witnesses from Westline 

will be called, but does not find that this unknown factor supports transfer. The Court 

finds that because the parties both have lawyers located in Arizona, and because it does 

not appear that there are a significantly greater number of witnesses located in California 

than in Arizona, this factor weighs in favor of not transferring the case. 

G. The Availability of Compulsory Process 

Defendant argues that the Court’s inability to compel attendance of certain 

witnesses who are residents of California weighs in favor of transfer. (Mot. at 8.) As 

Plaintiff aptly points out, this case largely involves party witnesses. However, because 

Plaintiff has not yet served Westline, Westline’s employees are not yet party witnesses in 

Case 2:15-cv-01313-JJT Document 24 Filed 01/15/16 Page 5 of 7
- 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 

this action, but as the company that transported the Shipment, Westline employees’ 

testimony may be relevant in this case. 

 Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the Westline driver, Mr. Vallecillo, would be 

subject to compulsory process under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(1)(A), 

because he “regularly transacts business in person” in Arizona. Because Mr. Vallecillo, 

as a truck driver, most likely drives throughout the western states regularly, it is likely 

that Mr. Vallecillo regularly transacts business in person in Arizona. However, even if the 

Court does not have subpoena power under Rule 45(c)(1)(A), the Court’s “lack of 

subpoena power may be solved through the use of deposition or video testimony.” F.T.C. 

v. Wright, No. 2:13-CV-2215-HRH, 2014 WL 1385111, at *4 (D. Ariz. Apr. 9, 2014) 

(quoting Roth v. Adtran, Inc., No. CV13-1735-PHX DGC, 2013 WL 6058294, at *3 (D. 

Ariz. Nov. 18, 2013)). Although the Court’s possible lack of subpoena power can be 

solved through other means, because live testimony is preferable, this factor slightly 

weighs in favor of transfer. See id. 

H. Ease of Access to Sources of Proof 

Because this case involves both Arizona and California companies and witnesses, 

both the District of Arizona and the Central District of California have approximately 

equal access to sources of proof. However, because Defendant has more clearly set forth 

the number and identity of witnesses in California, and because the alleged theft occurred 

in California, this factor slightly weighs in favor of transfer. 

I. 49 U.S.C. § 14706(d) 

Defendant argues that the Court should grant its Motion because Plaintiff brings a 

claim under 49 U.S.C. § 14706(d), the Carmack Amendment, and because the events 

giving rise to the lawsuit occurred in California. (Reply at 2–3.) Section 14706(d) 

provides that a civil action “may be brought against the carrier alleged to have caused the 

loss or damage, in the judicial district in which such loss or damage is alleged to have 

occurred.” While the statute allows for this case to be brought in the Central District of 

California and thus venue is proper there, the statute’s language does not mandate that 

Case 2:15-cv-01313-JJT Document 24 Filed 01/15/16 Page 6 of 7
- 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 

this action must be brought in that District. Accordingly, the Court gives little weight to 

this argument in deciding whether or not to transfer. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

Recognizing that the Court need not weigh each factor evenly, two of the eight 

factors weigh in favor of transfer, three weigh in favor of not transferring, and three are 

neutral. The Court concludes that this case should not be transferred. Unless Defendant 

has made “a strong showing of inconvenience,” Plaintiff’s choice of forum should not be 

disturbed. Roth, 2013 WL 6058294, at *3 (quoting Decker Coal Co., 805 F.2d at 843). 

Defendant has not met its burden where the majority of the factors weigh in favor of not 

transferring or are neutral. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue 

to the Central District of California Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (Doc. 15). 

 Dated this 15th day of January, 2016. 

 

 Honorable John J. Tuchi 

 United States District Judge 

Case 2:15-cv-01313-JJT Document 24 Filed 01/15/16 Page 7 of 7