Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01681/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01681-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 17:0101 Copyright Infringement (definitions)

---

CASE NO. 18-CV-01681-GPC-NLS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SARA ELIZABETH SIEGLER and 

Sara Elizabeth Siegler,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS, INC.,

TNK THERAPEUTICS, INC., BDL

PRODUCTS, INC., CARGENIX

HOLDINGS LLC, TUFTS MEDICAL

CENTER, PROSPECT

CHARTERCARE ROGER WILLIAMS

MEDICAL CENTER LLC, HENRY JI,

RICHARD PAUL JUNGHANS,

STEVEN C. KATZ, and THE BOARD

OF DIRECTORS OF SORRENTO

THERAPEUTICS, INC.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB

ORDER DENYING 

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR

EXPEDITED ORDER FOR 

CHANGE OF VENUE

[ECF NO. 133.]

On August 27, 2019, pro se Plaintiff Sara Elizabeth Siegler filed an 

‘emergency’ motion for a change of venue, requesting a ruling by August 30, 2019. 

(ECF No. 133.) Upon review of the motion, and in light of applicable law, the 

motion is DENIED for the reasons articulated below.

I. Background

Case 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB Document 135 Filed 08/30/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
- 1 - CASE NO. 18-CV-01681-GPC-BGS

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 July 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed the instant action in the Southern District of 

California. After extensive motions practice, the Court on August 2, 2019, granted 

dismissal with prejudice on all of the claims in Plaintiff’s second amended 

complaint. (ECF No. 126.)

On August 26, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiff’s sixth omnibus motion 

which requested (1) an extension on statutory deadline to file her Rule 59(e) motion 

against the dismissal order entered August 2, 2019, and (2) leave to file a motion 

for reconsideration which would exceed the 25 page limit prescribed by the local 

civil rules. The Court denied the first request and reaffirmed the statutory August 

30, 2019, deadline because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 expressly forbids the 

Court to provide the extension requested. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2) (“A court 

must not extend the time to act under Rules 50(b) and (d), 52(b), 59(b), (d), and (e), 

and 60(b).”). The Court granted the request to depart from the 25 page limit; in the 

absence of a requested brief length, the Court permitted a filing of up to 35 pages. 

Plaintiff’s instant motion for change of venue is predicated on her 

disagreement with the August 26, 2019 Order. She seeks a venue change out of 

this district because she believes the Court has not afforded her adequate 

accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and because she insists

that the Court and Court staff have conspired to retaliate against her, or subject her 

to biased and prejudicial treatment on account of her pro se status. Plaintiff does 

not specify where she would like the case to be transferred to, or where believes 

venue is proper, stating only that the case could be transferred to any federal 

district, and should be directed to a court that would be able to accommodate her. 

I. Transfer of Venue 

Plaintiff’s motion fails as a request for a change of venue. At worst, the 

request is a dilatory tactic to avoid the effects of the Court’s August 2, 2019 order 

dismissing the entirety of the action. See Silver Valley Partners, LLC v. De Motte, 

No. C05-5590 RBL, 2006 WL 2711764, at *5 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 21, 2006)

Case 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB Document 135 Filed 08/30/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
- 2 - CASE NO. 18-CV-01681-GPC-BGS

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

(warning against late-blooming requests for transfer brought merely as dilatory 

practice). According to Plaintiff, she seeks a transfer venue so that she can set her 

yet-to-be filed motion for reconsideration before a different Court. (ECF No. 133-

1, at 8.) That is no basis for transfer. 

At best, Plaintiff’s request for a venue change is waived as inadequately 

briefed. Most critically, Plaintiff has not requested transfer to any specific venue.

To support a motion for transfer of venue, the moving party must establish 

“that venue is proper in the transferor district; that the transferee district is one 

where the action might have originally been brought; and that transfer will serve the 

convenience of the parties and witnesses and will promote the interests of justice.” 

Vu v. Ortho–McNeil Pharm., Inc., 602 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1155–56 (N.D. Cal.2009)

(quoting Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 820 F.Supp. 

503, 506 (C.D. Cal. 1992)).

Once venue is determined to be proper in both districts, “[t]he Court must 

consider public factors relating to ‘the interest of justice’ and private factors 

relating to ‘the convenience of the parties and witnesses.’” Decker Coal Co. v. 

Commonw. Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). Such factors include: 

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

the witnesses; (4) ease of access to the evidence; (5) familiarity of each forum with 

an applicable law; (6) feasibility of consolidation with other claims; (7) any local 

interest in the controversy; and (8) the relative court congestion and time of trial in 

each forum. Vu, 602 F. Supp. 2d at 1156.

Here, Plaintiff has provided no justification for element three. Significantly,

it was Plaintiff herself who brought the case in the Southern District of California; 

in other words, this was Plaintiff’s own choice of forum. As master of her case, 

Plaintiff does not stand in the position of the usual transfer of venue movant, who is 

presumed to be a defendant. See Decker Coal Co., 805 F.2d at 843 (“The defendant 

Case 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB Document 135 Filed 08/30/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
- 3 - CASE NO. 18-CV-01681-GPC-BGS

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

must make a strong showing of inconvenience to warrant upsetting the plaintiff’s

choice of forum.”). Plaintiff cannot show transfer is in the interest of justice merely 

because she hopes another court would reach a different conclusion on a dispositive 

motion after it has been decided.

Moreover, the defending parties have invested considerable resources in

responding to her suit in the instant district, filing pro hac vice requests and 

litigating the issues in Plaintiff’s chosen forum. Plaintiff has offered no explanation 

of the prejudice or convenience that would befall the defendants if venue was 

transferred, nor could she without specifying which venue she prefers. 

In addition, the Court has spent considerable time familiarizing itself with 

Plaintiff’s allegations. It has considerable institutional knowledge of the facts and 

procedural history of this litigation. It has issued an abundance of orders

accommodating Plaintiff’s filing requests (for extensions of time, for leave to file 

oversize briefs) and permitted her access to the CM/ECF system so that she might 

directly file. It has gone to considerable lengths to comprehend and construe 

liberally Plaintiff’s prolix, perplexing, and often procedurally-deficient filings in 

light of her pro se status. And when it has ruled on dispositive motions, the Court 

has painstakingly enumerated, at a level of guidance and specificity not ordinarily 

accorded to counseled parties, the precise reasons Plaintiff’s claims were 

unavailing, so that she might amend and cure. The Court has not acted in a biased 

or prejudiced manner toward Plaintiff; in fact it has striven to do quite the opposite. 

If Plaintiff believed there was another venue where she would receive greater 

solicitude and accommodations, she could have identified one in her motion. 

Seeing none, and finding the request for transfer both dilatory and inadequately 

briefed, the Court will deny the request. 

Transfer is not appropriate. 

II. Motion for Reconsideration

Case 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB Document 135 Filed 08/30/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
- 4 - CASE NO. 18-CV-01681-GPC-BGS

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 has not set forth any newly discovered evidence, change in 

controlling law, or clear error or manifest injustice. To the extent that the motion 

for change of venue constitutes a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s August 

26, 2019 order, it is also DENIED. 

III. Conclusion

For the above reasons, the emergency motion is DENIED. (ECF No. 133.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 30, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB Document 135 Filed 08/30/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5