Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01778/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01778-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

Page 1 of 5 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk TC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 

Case No. CV 23-7919-KK-RAOx Date: December 28, 2023 

Title: Michael Pierson et al v. Enerco group Inc et al 

 

Present: The Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

Noe Ponce Not Reported 

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter 

 

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): 

None Present None Present 

Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order GRANTING Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Case to 

the Eastern District of California [dkt. 20] 

I. 

INTRODUCTION 

 On October 10, 2022, Plaintiffs Michael Pierson and Courtney Pierson (collectively 

“Plaintiffs”) filed a Product Liability Complaint (“Complaint”) against Defendants M.B. Sturgis, 

Inc., Enerco Group, Inc., Coloma Food Inc., Worthington Industries, Inc., and Grand Gas 

Equipment Inc. (collectively “Defendants) in Los Angeles County Superior Court. ECF Docket 

No. (“Dkt.”) 4-1. On January 10, 2023, Defendants filed an Answer. Dkts. 4-2, 7. On September 

21, 2023, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal of Action to Federal Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1332, 1441, and 1446. Dkt. 1.1 On October 19, 2023, Defendants filed a Motion to Transfer Case 

to the Eastern District of California (“Motion”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404 and 1391. Dkt. 20. 

On November 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Motion. Dkt 32. On December 7, 

2023, Defendants filed a Reply. Dkt 38. The matter thus stands submitted. 

 

The Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument. See FED. R.

CIV. P. 78(b); L.R. 7-15. For the reasons stated below, Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Case to the 

Eastern District of California is GRANTED. 

1 Defendants state a motion to transfer venue was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, 

but the hearing “was not scheduled for a date until after the removal occurred.” Dkt 20 at 6.

JS-6 Case 1:23-cv-01778-JLT-EPG Document 43 Filed 12/28/23 Page 1 of 5
Page 2 of 5 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk TC 

II. 

RELEVANT FACTS 

 This case arises out of an explosion that occurred at a campground in Snelling, California 

within the Eastern District of California, on February 21, 2021 (“Incident”). The Incident occurred 

in an enclosed trailer owned by Plaintiff Michael Pierson and his wife, Katie Pierson (“Decedent”). 

Dkt. 20 at 3, Declaration of Kyle R. DiNicola (“DiNicola Decl.”), ¶ 21, Ex. A (“Complaint”), ¶ 10. 

According to the Complaint, Decedent was attempting to turn on a portable propane heater which 

was connected to a propane tank located inside the trailer. Id. ¶ 14. A propane gas flash fire 

occurred and both Plaintiff and Decedent sustained significant burns. Id. ¶ 10. 

 Numerous individuals responded to the Incident, including personnel from the Merced 

County Sheriff’s Department, Cal-fire employees, the owner of the campground where Plaintiffs 

were staying, and paramedics from Riggs Ambulance Service. Dkt. 20-8, Declaration of Frances 

Brower (“Brower Decl.”), ¶¶ 1-5; Ex. G, Declaration of Alexandra Britton ¶¶ 1-3; Declaration of 

Randy Cash (“Randy Decl.”), ¶¶ 1-3. Plaintiff and Decedent thereafter received treatment from 

physicians at Community Regional Medical Center (“CMRC”) in Fresno, and Kaiser Permanente in 

Sacramento, California within the Eastern District of California. Complaint ¶¶ 2, 4, 43-44; 

Declaration of William Dominic, MC (“Dominic Decl.”), ¶¶ 1-3. 

At the time of the Incident, Plaintiff Michael Pierson and Decedent were residents of 

Herald, California, within the Eastern District of California. DiNicola Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. B (Michael 

Pierson’s Responses to Enerco’s Form Interrogatories, Set One), No. 4.1. Additionally, Plaintiff 

Courtney Pierson, Decedent’s daughter, was a resident of Auburn, California also within the Eastern 

District of California. Complaint ¶¶ 1, 3; DiNicola Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. F (Courtney Pierson’s Responses 

to Enerco’s Form Interrogatories, Set One), No. 2.5. 

Decedent ultimately passed away due to her injuries on May 20, 2021. Complaint ¶ 10. 

Plaintiffs thereafter initiated the instant action by filing a Complaint in Los Angeles County Superior 

Court, alleging negligence and product liability claims against the manufacturers of the propane tank, 

the portable heater, and other equipment involved in the Incident. See id. 

III. 

DISCUSSION 

A. VENUE IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IS PROPER 

1. Applicable Law 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) a civil action may be brought in (1) a judicial district in which any 

defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a 

judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim 

occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) if there is 

no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial 

district with respect to such action. 

/// 

/// 

Case 1:23-cv-01778-JLT-EPG Document 43 Filed 12/28/23 Page 2 of 5
Page 3 of 5 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk TC 

2. Analysis 

Here, venue is proper in the Eastern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

The entire Incident that gives rise to Plaintiffs’ Complaint occurred in Snelling, California, located in 

Merced County, in the Eastern District of California. Complaint ¶¶ 10. Therefore, this action could 

have been brought in the Eastern District of California.2 

B. TRANSFER OF VENUE TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF PARTIES AND WITNESSES AND IN THE 

INTEREST OF JUSTICE IS APPROPRIATE 

1. Applicable Law 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court may, “[f]or the convenience of parties and 

witnesses, in the interest of justice . . . transfer any civil action to any other district or division where 

it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.” This 

statute “is intended to place discretion in the district courts to adjudicate motions for transfer 

according to an individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.” Stewart 

Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988). The decision to transfer lies within the sound 

discretion of the trial judge. See Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 639 (9th Cir. 1988). 

The party seeking to transfer venue bears the burden of showing that convenience and 

justice require transfer. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 

1979); Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 943 (9th Cir. 1986) (“The 

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

of forum.”). The initial question of a motion to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is whether 

the case “might have been brought” in the proposed transferee district. In re Bozic, 888 F.3d 1048, 

1053 (9th Cir. 2018). Once a party satisfies its burden that a case might have been brought in the 

proposed transferee district, the Court is required “to weigh multiple factors in its determination [of] 

whether transfer is appropriate in a particular case.” Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 

498 (9th Cir. 2000). The convenience of witnesses is said to be the most important factor when 

deciding a transfer motion. Los Angeles Mem’l Coliseum Comm’n v. NFL, 89 F.R.D. 497, 501 

(C.D. Cal. 1981). Courts may also consider: 

 

(1) the state most familiar with the governing law, 

(2) the plaintiff’s choice of forum, 

(3) the respective parties’ contacts with the forum, 

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

(5) the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums. 

2 While Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Motion focuses primarily on personal jurisdiction, see 

dkt. 32 at 14-25, such discussion is not relevant to the Court’s analysis. Moreover, federal law allows 

a district court to transfer an action even if it lacks personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Cal. Practice 

Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2023) ¶¶ 4:589-4:599; see also Goldlawr, Inc. 

v. Heiman, 82 S. Ct. 913, 915-16; SongByrd, Inc. v. Estate of Grossman, 206 F.3d 172, 179-80 (2d 

Cir. 2000).

Case 1:23-cv-01778-JLT-EPG Document 43 Filed 12/28/23 Page 3 of 5
Page 4 of 5 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk TC 

Id.; see also Baglama v. MWV Consumer & Office Prod., No. CV 12-1209-FMO-JPRx, 2013 WL 

12200647, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2013). 

2. Analysis 

a. Convenience of Witnesses 

Here, the entire Incident occurred in the Eastern District of California. Additionally, all of 

the potential witnesses in this case – including Michael Pierson, the Merced County Sheriff’s 

Department, Cal-fire employees, the owner of the campground where Plaintiffs were staying, 

paramedics from Riggs Ambulance Service, physicians at CMRC in Fresno, and the Kaiser 

Permanente facility in Sacramento are all located in the Eastern District of California. Complaint 

¶¶ 2, 4, 43-44; Brower Decl., ¶¶ 6-8; Randy Decl, ¶¶ 1-3; Dominic Decl., ¶¶ 1-3. Therefore, the 

most important factor in the Court’s analysis strongly favors Defendants.

b. The State Most Familiar with the Governing Law 

Plaintiff’s choice of forum is the Central District of California, while Defendants argues 

venue is proper in the Eastern District of California. See dkts. 20, 32. Because both venues are 

located in California, this factor is neutral. 

c. The Plaintiffs’ Choice of Forum 

Generally, a plaintiff’s choice of forum receives greater deference particularly “when the 

forum chosen is not only the plaintiff’s domicile but also has a significant connection with the 

subject matter of the case.” Los Angeles Mem’l Coliseum Comm’n, 89 F.R.D. at 499 (citing Pac. Car 

& Foundry Co. v. Pence, 403 F.2d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 1968)); see also Amini Innovation Corp. v. JS 

Imports, Inc., 497 F. Supp. 2d 1093, 1110 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (“Generally, the fact that a plaintiff has 

filed suit in the district where it resides is a sufficient connection to accord its choice of forum 

deference.”). However, a plaintiff’s choice may be entitled to less deference if “the operative facts 

have not occurred within the forum and the forum has no interest in the subject matter.” Lou v. 

Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Here, Plaintiff’s choice of forum receives less deference because the operative facts did not 

occur in the Central District of California. In fact, all operative facts occurred in the Eastern 

District of California. Complaint ¶¶ 2, 4, 43-44; Brower Decl., ¶¶ 6-8; Randy Decl, ¶¶ 1-3; Dominic 

Decl., ¶¶ 1-3. Therefore, while this factor favors Plaintiffs, it is entitled to less deference.

d. The Respective Parties’ Contact with the Forum 

At the time of the Incident, Plaintiff Michael Pierson and Decedent were residents of 

Herald, California, a city within Sacramento County in the Eastern District of California. DiNicola 

Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. B (Michael Pierson’s Responses to Enerco’s Form Interrogatories, Set One), No. 2.5. 

Plaintiff Courtney Pierson was also a resident of Auburn, California, in Placer County. DiNicola 

Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. F (Courtney Pierson’s Responses to Enerco’s Form Interrogatories, Set One), No. 

2.5. Moreover, while Plaintiff argues venue is proper in the Central District of California because 

one of the five Defendants allegedly had a manufacturing facility located there in 2021, see dkt 32 at 

18-20, Plaintiff fails to consider the other two ways in which venue may be proper or better suited as 

Case 1:23-cv-01778-JLT-EPG Document 43 Filed 12/28/23 Page 4 of 5
Page 5 of 5 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk TC 

outlined in 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Hence, Plaintiffs’ contacts with the Eastern District of California 

are stronger than its contacts with the Central District of California. Therefore, this factor favors 

Defendants.

e. The Contacts Relating to Plaintiffs’ Cause of Action in the Chosen 

Forum 

As previously discussed, the contacts relating to the Incident, including all potential 

witnesses, are located in the Eastern District of California. Complaint ¶¶ 2, 4, 43-44;; DiNicola 

Decl. ¶¶ 2,4, 43-44; Brower Decl., ¶¶ 6-8; Randy Decl, ¶¶ 1-3; Dominic Decl., ¶¶ 1-3. Hence, no 

events occurred in the Central District of California. Therefore, this factor favors Defendants.

f. The Differences in the Costs of Litigation in the Two Forums 

 

Finally, the Court agrees with Defendant that “the costs of litigation will be substantially 

impacted to the extent any party is obligated to compel an individual to appear for trial at the 

Central District of California[,]” and “[n]ot only will the parties be required to expend unnecessary 

time and cost to file a motion to compel, but additional unnecessary time and resources will be 

required to evaluate whether a particular nonparty witness will incur ‘substantial expense’ in having 

to travel to the Central District [of California] [].” See dkt. 20 at 18-19. While Plaintiffs claim “the 

vast majority of litigation in this matter has already been conducted via remote means[,]” and it will 

“provide for the cost of travel and accommodations for necessary witnesses to this action[,]” see 

dkt. 32 at 30, Plaintiffs claims do not contradict the higher litigation costs that would be incurred if 

the case proceeds in this District. Therefore, this factor favors Defendants. 

Hence, because the instant action could have been brought in the Eastern District of 

California and the practical factors favor Defendant more than Plaintiff, the transfer of venue to the 

Eastern District of California is proper. 

IV. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 

1404(a), Defendant has met its burden with respect to establishing transfer of venue to the Eastern 

District of California. As such, the court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Case to 

the Eastern District of California. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, dkt. 21, is deemed MOOT. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Case 1:23-cv-01778-JLT-EPG Document 43 Filed 12/28/23 Page 5 of 5