Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01818/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01818-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Legal Malpractice

---

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

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

* * *

JEFFREY RANDALL, 

Plaintiff,

v.

HANSON CRAWFORD CRUM FAMILY 

LAW GROUP, LLP, a California limited 

liability Partnership,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:18-cv-00479-MMD-WGC 

ORDER

Chiefly pending before the Court is Defendant Hanson Crawford Crum Family Law 

Group, LLP’s (“Hanson”) motion to dismiss this case for lack of personal jurisdiction, 

improper venue or, in the alternative, to transfer venue to the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. (ECF No. 15 at 1.) The Court 

has considered Plaintiff Jeffrey Randall’s opposition (ECF No. 22) and Defendant’s reply 

(ECF No. 24). In its discretion, the Court will transfer this case to the Northern District of 

California. 

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides that “[f]or the convenience of 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.” Amazon.com v. Cendant Corp., 404 F. Supp. 

2d 1256, 1259 (W.D. Wash. 2005). “The purpose of this section is to prevent the waste of 

time, energy, and money and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against 

unnecessary inconvenience and expense.” Id. (citations and quotation marks omitted); 

see also Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498–99 (9th Cir. 2000) (providing 

factors to be considered in determining whether transfer is appropriate). 

Here, the Court finds that the interests of justice and judicial economy and the 

weight of related collateral and attendant considerations favor transfer to the Northern 

Case 3:19-cv-01818-VC Document 33 Filed 04/03/19 Page 1 of 2
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

District of California where another matter involving the same pertinent transactions—on 

which Plaintiff’s claims here are based—is currently pending in Case No. 3:18-cv-03371-

VC (“ND Cal. Case”). (ECF No. 25-1; ECF No. 25-3.)1 Notably, the ND Cal. Case has 

already established a case schedule. (Id.) 

It is therefore ordered that Defendant’s alternative motion to transfer this case to 

United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division

to be consolidated with the ongoing litigation in the ND Cal. Case (ECF No. 15) is granted. 

The Court therefore declines to rule on Defendant’s other arguments in support of 

dismissal. The Court also declines to rule on Defendant’s request for sanctions against 

Plaintiff (id. at 13).

It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a surreply (ECF No. 26) is 

denied as moot. 

The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this case to the Northern District of 

California, San Francisco Division and close this case. 

DATED THIS 3rd day of April 2019. 

 

 MIRANDA M. DU

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 1The Court takes judicial notice of records in the pending Northern District of 

California case. See, e.g., Disabled Rights Action Comm. v. Las Vegas Events, Inc., 375 

F.3d 861, 866 n.1 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that a court may take judicial notice of a 

government agency’s records and other undisputed matters of public record under Fed. 

R. Evid. 201). 

Case 3:19-cv-01818-VC Document 33 Filed 04/03/19 Page 2 of 2