Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03539/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03539-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 355
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 The complaint alleges that “the solicitation for and eventual reservation with BUDGET for

the GRAND MARQUIS rental car was made in Contra Costa County, California.” Id. ¶ 5.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUSAN FARMER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

FORD MOTOR CO., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-3539 SI

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Defendants’ motion to transfer venue is scheduled for a hearing on November 30, 2007.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that the matter is appropriate for resolution

without oral argument, and VACATES the hearing. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS

defendants’ motion and TRANSFERS this action to the United States District Court for the Northern

District of Ohio.

BACKGROUND

This case arises out of an automobile accident that occurred on June 10, 2006 in Akron, Ohio.

On June 8, 2006, plaintiff Susan Farmer rented a 2006 Grand Marquis from defendant Budget Rent A

Car located at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport in Ohio. Complaint ¶¶ 2-3.1

 Mrs. Farmer was

visiting her mother, Virginia Farley, in Ohio where Ms. Farley lived. Id. ¶¶ 5, 10. The complaint

alleges that on June 10, 2006, in the parking lot of the Carousel Dinner Theater in Akron, Ohio, Mrs.

Farmer put the rental car into what she believed to be “park,” and then exited the car to assist her mother

Case 3:07-cv-03539-SI Document 42 Filed 11/28/07 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

 The complaint states that Ms. Farley passed away in November 2006, at the age of 93.

Complaint ¶ 9.

2

into the passenger seat of the car. Id. ¶ 3. Plaintiffs allege that as Mrs. Farmer opened the passenger

door, the car self-shifted into “reverse,” knocking Ms. Farley to the ground. Id. Mrs. Farmer attempted

to pull her mother away from the car, and became caught between the car’s floorboard and the open

passenger door. Id. Mrs. Farmer was dragged 80 feet across the parking lot. Id. Both Mrs. Farmer and

her mother were injured as a result of the accident. Id. 

Mrs. Farmer and her mother received assistance at the scene from members of the Akron Police

Department, and were then taken to the Akron City Hospital where they received further treatment.

Nassihi Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A. Mrs. Farmer has required extensive medical treatment as a result of her

injuries, including major reconstructive spinal surgery and spinal fusion, which took place in San

Francisco and Contra Costa County. Farmer Decl. ¶ 3. The allegedly defective car is being stored in

Cleveland, Ohio. Kachler Decl. ¶ 6. Soon after the accident, Mrs. Farmer and Ms. Farley retained a

Hudson, Ohio attorney to represent them and to ensure that the vehicle be preserved in its then-current

condition. Nassihi Decl. Ex. B. 

On June 7, 2007, Mrs. Farmer, the Estate of Virginia M. Farley,2

 and the Virginia M. Farley

Revocable Trust, through executor and trustee, Gail M. Royster, filed this action in Contra Costa County

Superior Court, alleging strict products liability, negligence, violations of California Business &

Professions Code § 17200 et seq., and California Civil Code § 750 et seq. In addition, Arthur L. Farmer,

Mrs. Farmer’s husband, alleges loss of consortium due to his wife’s injuries. Mr. and Mrs. Farley live

in Orinda, California. Complaint ¶¶ 7-8. Gail M. Royster is Virginia Farley’s daughter, and is a

resident of Ohio. Id. ¶ 9. 

Defendant Budget Rent A Car System, Inc., rented and maintained the allegedly defective car

solely in Ohio. Kachler Decl. ¶¶ 3-4. Of the previous renters of the car who Budget has identified to

date, none are residents of California, and four are residents of Ohio. Id. ¶ 5. Defendant Ford Motor

Company has submitted documents showing that the vehicle was designed in Michigan and assembled

in Canada. Nassihi Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. C. Defendant Ford is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters

in Dearborn, Michigan. Id. ¶ 12. Defendant Budget is a Delaware corporation with its principal place

Case 3:07-cv-03539-SI Document 42 Filed 11/28/07 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

of business in Parsippany, New Jersey. Eisenberg Decl. ¶ 2.

On July 9, 2007, defendants removed this action on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.

Defendants now move to transfer this action to the Northern District of Ohio pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1404(a).

LEGAL STANDARD

“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may

transfer any civil matter to any other district or division where it might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1404(a). The purpose of § 1404(a) is to “prevent the waste of time, energy, and money and to protect

litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense.” Van Dusen v.

Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964) (internal citations and quotation omitted). A motion for transfer lies

within the broad discretion of the district court, and must be determined on an individualized basis. See

Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000).

To support a motion for transfer, the moving party must establish: (1) that venue is proper in the

transferor district; (2) that the transferee district is one where the action might have been brought; and

(3) that the transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and will promote the

interests of justice. See Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 820 F. Supp. 503,

506 (C.D. Cal. 1992). Transfer is discretionary, but is governed by certain factors specified in § 1404(a)

and in relevant case law.

DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, the Court finds that venue would be proper in either this district or the

Northern District of Texas, and plaintiffs do not dispute this point. Once venue is determined to be

proper in both districts, courts evaluate the following factors to determine which venue is more

convenient to the parties and the witnesses: (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 the 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. See Williams

Case 3:07-cv-03539-SI Document 42 Filed 11/28/07 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Citing the fact that plaintiffs initially retained an Ohio attorney, defendants contend that

plaintiffs’ choice of forum should be disregarded because there are indications of forum shopping. The

Court does not find this fact necessarily indicative of forum shopping, and accordingly does not find it

relevant in the transfer analysis. 

4

v. Bowman, 157 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 1106 (N.D. Cal. 2001). 

Plaintiffs only address the first three factors: plaintiffs’ choice of forum, and convenience of the

parties and witnesses. Plaintiffs argue that their choice of forum is to be given great deference, and they

emphasize the fact that the only two living plaintiffs reside in California. Plaintiffs also argue that Mrs.

Farmer’s current treating physicians are located in California, and that transfer will be very inconvenient

for these witnesses.

Courts should afford considerable weight to a plaintiff’s choice in determining a motion to

transfer. See Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Vigman, 764 F.2d 1309, 1317 (9th Cir. 1985). A

plaintiff’s choice of forum, however, is not dispositive, and must be balanced against other factors of

convenience. For example, where the transactions giving rise to the action lack a significant connection

to the plaintiff’s chosen forum, the plaintiff's choice of forum is given considerably less weight, even

if the plaintiff is a resident of the forum. See Schwarzer, Tashima & Wagstaffe, Federal Civil Procedure

Before Trial § 4:763 (2007); see also Schmidt v. American Inst. of Physics, 322 F. Supp. 2d 28, 33

(D.D.C. 2004). Here, a majority of the operative facts giving rise to this case occurred in Ohio; the

accident took place in Ohio, the car was serviced and maintained in Ohio, and plaintiffs were treated

on the scene and at an Ohio hospital. Plaintiffs are correct that the design and assembly of the vehicle

did not take place in Ohio; however, neither of those transactions occurred in California.3 

On the whole, transfer will be marginally more convenient for the parties. Two of the four

named plaintiffs – the Estate of Virginia Farley and the Virginia M. Farley Revocable Trust – are based

in Ohio. Although the Farmers reside in California, and thus transfer will be less convenient for them,

the Farmers do have ties to Ohio. Further, defendants note that the Northern District of Ohio permits

parties to attend hearings via telephone, and thus to the extent the Farmers wish to attend hearings, they

may do so by phone. Nassihi Reply Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. O (local rules). Because defendants are large

companies, California would not be a particularly inconvenient forum. However, defendant Ford’s

principal place of business is in neighboring Michigan, and defendant Budget is headquartered in New

Case 3:07-cv-03539-SI Document 42 Filed 11/28/07 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Jersey, which is closer to Ohio.

The Court also finds that transfer will be significantly more convenient for the witnesses.

Defendants have identified numerous witnesses who are located in Ohio, including the responding

police officers, paramedics and physicians, employees of Budget, and individuals who previously rented

the car. The Court is not persuaded by plaintiffs’ assertion that the testimony of these individuals is not

particularly relevant or important. Witnesses to the aftermath of the accident may possess information

relevant to liability and causation, and whether prior renters had any experiences similar to plaintiffs’

would be highly relevant. Similarly, Budget employees located in Ohio will testify as to the rental and

maintenance of the car. Ford employees in nearby Michigan will testify about the design and

manufacture of the car. Mrs. Farmer’s current treating physicians are located in California, and it is true

that transfer will be inconvenient for them. However, their testimony primarily goes to the issue of

damages, and may be susceptible of video- and records-based presentation. 

The remaining factors, which plaintiffs do not address, are either neutral or favor transfer. The

parties will have greater ease of access to evidence in Ohio since the scene of the accident, the car, and

many percipient witnesses are located there. The car’s service and maintenance records are located in

Ohio. Kachler Decl. ¶¶ 2-3, Ex. A. Either court is equally capable of applying the applicable law,

whether that law is California law or Ohio law, and thus this factor is neutral in the transfer analysis.

The feasibility of consolidation with other claims is not relevant here. The local interest in the

controversy also favors Ohio, as the accident occurred in that district. Defendant Budget serviced and

maintained the allegedly defective car in Ohio. Kachler Decl. ¶¶ 2-5, Ex. A & B. Defendant Ford does

not have any manufacturing, assembly or fabrication plants in California, while Ford does have four

such plants in Ohio. Nassihi Decl. ¶¶ 8-9, Ex. E & F. California’s connection to this lawsuit is solely

limited to the fact that two of the plaintiffs live in California. Finally, this district is considerably more

congested than the Ohio district. See Nassihi Decl. Ex. I (Federal Judicial Caseload Statistics).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS defendants’ motion

Case 3:07-cv-03539-SI Document 42 Filed 11/28/07 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6

to transfer venue, and TRANSFERS this action to the United States District Court for the Northern

District of Ohio. (Docket Nos. 17 & 21). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 28, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03539-SI Document 42 Filed 11/28/07 Page 6 of 6