Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00523/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00523-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:0501 Copyright Infringement

---

– 1 – 18-cv-0523 DMS (BLM)

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

LUMINENCE, LLC,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 18-cv-0523 DMS (BLM)

ORDER DENYING MOTION 

FOR CHANGE OF VENUE

v.

FLASHING PANDA, a sole 

proprietorship, and DANIEL 

ODULO, an individual,

Defendants.

Pending before the Court is Defendants Flashing Panda and Daniel Odulo’s 

motion for change of venue to the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 1406(a). Plaintiff Luminence, LLC filed an opposition, and 

Defendants did not file a reply. For the following reasons, the motion is denied.

I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a company located in La Jolla, California that creates and sells fiber 

optic light-up accessories, including fiber optic light attachments for hair sold under 

the Glowbys brand. (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 9.) Odulo is an individual residing in San Jose, 

California, who does business as Flashing Panda, a sole proprietorship located in 

Campbell, California. (Id. ¶¶ 3–4.) Defendants market and sell light-up novelty 

Case 3:18-cv-00523-DMS-BLM Document 20 Filed 07/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
– 2 – 18-cv-0523 DMS (BLM)

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

items, including the Glowbys product. (Id. ¶ 16.) Plaintiff has supplied the Glowbys 

product to Defendants since 2009. (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges it owns the copyrights to a series of photographs of a model 

wearing the Glowbys product, which have been registered with the United States 

Copyright Office. (Compl. ¶¶ 11–14.) Plaintiff authorized Defendants to use these 

photographs for marketing and sale of the Glowbys product. (Id. ¶ 15.) Plaintiff 

claims it has never authorized Defendants to reproduce, distribute, display, or 

otherwise use the photographs in the marketing or sale of any other product. (Id.)

In October 2016, Plaintiff discovered Defendants selling a competing product

on Amazon.com that used one of Plaintiff’s copyrighted photographs on its 

packaging. (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 18.) In March 2017, Plaintiff also discovered that 

Defendant’s listing for the competitive product used several of the copyrighted 

photographs for advertisement. (Id. ¶¶ 21–24.) 

On March 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant alleging 

direct copyright infringement, in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. On April 11, 

2018, Defendants filed an Answer, and subsequently, the present motion.

II.

DISCUSSION

A. § 1406(a)

Defendants request the Court to transfer the action pursuant to § 1406(a) on 

the ground that venue is improper. Section 1406(a) allows a court in a district with 

improper venue to dismiss the case, or in the interests of justice, transfer the case to 

any district in which it could have been brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). A defendant, 

however, must raise the venue objection in a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) or a responsive pleading; otherwise the defense is 

waived. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g)(2) & (h)(1). Here, Defendants did not file a Rule 

12(b)(3) motion objecting to venue nor did they raise venue as an affirmative defense 

in the Answer. In fact, Defendants “admit[ted] venue is proper in this District[.]” 

Case 3:18-cv-00523-DMS-BLM Document 20 Filed 07/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
– 3 – 18-cv-0523 DMS (BLM)

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

(Answer ¶ 8.) Accordingly, to the extent Defendants seek transfer of this case 

pursuant to § 1406(a), the motion is denied. 

B. § 1404(a)

Defendants also move to transfer venue under § 1404(a), arguing 

inconvenience of the parties and witnesses favor transfer. In deciding whether to 

transfer an action under § 1404(a), a court must make the following determinations: 

(1) whether the action “might have been brought” in the transferee court,1and (2) 

whether “convenience of the parties and witnesses in the interest of justice” favor 

transfer. Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 409, 414 (9th Cir. 1985). In making 

the second determination, a court may consider the following factors: 

(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 v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498–99 (9th Cir. 2000). A plaintiff’s 

choice of forum is ordinarily given “substantial weight[,]” Williams v. Bowman, 157 

F. Supp. 2d 1103, 1106 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (citations omitted), and is entitled to 

“greater deference” where, as here, “the plaintiff has chosen its ‘home forum.’” In 

re Ferrero Litig., 768 F. Supp. 2d 1074, 1078 (S.D. Cal. 2011) (quoting Piper 

Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 256 (1981)). In arguing for transfer of venue, 

“[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., 

 

1 There is no dispute this action could have been filed in the Northern District of 

California, which is a prerequisite for transfer under section 1404(a). Therefore, the 

Court turns to the Jones factors to determine whether “convenience of the parties 

and witnesses in the interest of justice” favor transfer. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

Case 3:18-cv-00523-DMS-BLM Document 20 Filed 07/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
– 4 – 18-cv-0523 DMS (BLM)

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

805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). The defendant, as the moving party, carries the 

burden of showing transfer is appropriate. Cmty. Futures Trading Comm’n v. 

Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979).

Here, Defendants argue it would be inconvenient and burdensome to litigate 

this case in this District because they reside in the Northern District, as well as their

witnesses and relevant documents. Defendants, however, fail to identify any 

witnesses, their proposed testimony, or any reason why such witnesses would be 

unwilling to appear in this District. See Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. National Bank 

for Cooperatives, No. C 92–2667 BAC, 1993 WL 341274, *4 (N.D.Cal. Aug.27, 

1993) (“The movant is obligated to clearly specify the key witnesses to be called and 

make at least a generalized statement of what their testimony would have 

included.”); Pinnacle Fitness & Recreation Mgmt., LLC v. Jerry & Vickie Moyes 

Family Tr., No. 08-CV-1368 W (POR), 2009 WL 10664872, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 

8, 2009) (“Without proof of where the relevant witnesses reside, the testimony they 

will provide at trial, and that the witnesses are unwilling to travel to [the chosen 

forum]; [the defendant] has failed to demonstrate that this factor weighs in favor of 

transfer”). Moreover, while it might be inconvenient for Defendants to travel to this 

District, the Court must also weigh the inconvenience for Plaintiff to travel to the 

Northern District, given that Plaintiff is located in this District. See Decker Coal, 

805 F.2d at 843 (stating transfer is inappropriate where it “would merely shift rather 

than eliminate the inconvenience.”). In addition, “technological advances in 

document storage and retrieval mitigate the burdens of transporting documents, if 

any,” from the Northern District to this District. Chesapeake Climate Action 

Network v. Export–Import Bank of the United States, No. 13–03532, 2013 WL 

6057824, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2013). Defendants have shown only a marginal 

inconvenience, which is insufficient to upset Plaintiff’s choice of forum. Because 

Defendants have not made a “strong showing” that this case should be transferred to 

the Northern District, the motion is denied.

Case 3:18-cv-00523-DMS-BLM Document 20 Filed 07/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
– 5 – 18-cv-0523 DMS (BLM)

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

III.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion for change of venue is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-00523-DMS-BLM Document 20 Filed 07/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5