Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03435/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03435-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 310
Nature of Suit: Airplane Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEE BROWNSTEIN, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AMERICAN AIRLINES,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-05-3435 JCS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

ORDER OF TRANSFER BY

DEFENDANT AMERICAN AIRLINES,

INC. AND TRANSFERRING ACTION TO

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT

OF CALIFORNIA [Docket No. 19]

I. INTRODUCTION

On Friday, January 13, the Motion for Order of Transfer by Defendant American Airlines,

Inc. (“the Motion”) came on for hearing. For the reasons stated below, the Motion is GRANTED. 

II. BACKGROUND

This action arises out of events that occurred on June 27, 2004, when Lee and Lana

Brownstein, who are residents of Los Angeles County, were scheduled to fly from New York -

Kennedy International Airport to Los Angeles International Airport on American Airlines Flight

241. First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) at 1, ¶ 1 and 2, ¶¶5, 9. Plaintiffs allege that when they

boarded the plane in New York and went to their assigned seats, they found that the third seat in the

row of three was occupied by “an exceedingly large man whose bulk was too great for the single

seat he had paid for.” Id. Plaintiffs complained to members of the cabin crew. Id. at 2, ¶ 5. The

events that ensued are disputed, but it is undisputed that ultimately, Plaintiffs were requested to

disembark the aircraft. Id. Eventually, they were allowed to board a later flight to Long Beach

Airport. Id. Because Plaintiffs had flown out of Los Angeles International Airport, they were

required to take a taxi home and retrieve their car and baggage the next day. Id.

Case 3:05-cv-03435-JCS Document 28 Filed 01/13/06 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

1

One day prior to the hearing on the Motion, Plaintiffs e-filed a “Suggestion of Remand” in

which they suggested that the Court sua sponte remand the action to state court. At the hearing, the

Court indicated that it would not remand sua sponte but would permit Plaintiffs to file a motion to

remand. The Court further indicated that it would not decide the motion to transfer until the motion to

remand was resolved. In response, Plaintiffs agreed that they would not file a motion to remand and on

that basis, the Court determined that it was appropriate to resolve Defendant’s transfer motion at this

time.

2

On June 8, 2005, Plaintiffs initiated this action in the Superior Court for the County of

Alameda and on August 19, 2005, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint. In the First

Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs asserted six claims: 1) Negligent and Intentional Infliction of

Emotional Distress; 2) False Imprisonment; 3) Defamation; 4) Breach of Contract; 5) Violation of

California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.; and 6) Remedies

under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. 

 Defendant, American Airlines, removed the action to this Court on August 24, 2005, and

subsequently filed a motion to dismiss. In an order dated November 7, 2005, the Court dismissed

Plaintiffs’ claims for False Imprisonment, Unfair Competition and Remedies under the Consumer

Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiffs’ claims for Negligent and Intentional Infliction of Emotional

Distress, Defamation and Breach of Contract survived Defendant’s motion to dismiss. 

Defendant now brings a motion to transfer on the basis of convenience under 28 U.S.C. §

1404(a), asserting that the case should be transferred to the Central District of California. Defendant

points out that the Brownsteins, three out of six of the passengers who witnessed the events at issue

and both crew members who wrote event reports are located in the Central District. In addition,

Defendant asserts that none of the relevant events occurred in this District and no individuals who

have been identified as witnesses reside in this District. According to Defendant, Plaintiffs’ only

connection with this District is that their attorney practices here.

Plaintiffs do not dispute that the events at issue have no connection to this District. Nor do

they identify any potential witness or evidence located in this District. Further, Plaintiffs concede

that this District is an inconvenient forum for them but assert that their choice of forum should be

honored, nonetheless, because in choosing it, they considered factors “such as court congestion and

jury pools.”1

 

Case 3:05-cv-03435-JCS Document 28 Filed 01/13/06 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

III. ANALYSIS

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a case may be transferred to any district where venue is

proper “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.” The district court

has discretion to transfer cases based on the individualized facts of each case and considerations of

convenience and fairness. Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 .3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000). In

determining whether to transfer an action under § 1404(a), courts 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.” Id. at 498-499.

Here, the parties do not dispute that venue in the Central District of California – in which Los

Angeles County is located – is proper. Thus, Defendant’s Motion turns on whether transfer is “[f]or

the convenience of parties and witnesses [and] in the interest of justice.” As discussed below, the

Court concludes that transfer is warranted. In reaching this conclusion, the Court is particularly

influenced by the fact that: 1) there is no connection between the facts of this case and this District

(as Plaintiffs concede); and 2) the outcome of the case may well turn on the testimony of witnesses –

possibly in the form of live testimony at trial – and the majority of the party and non-party witnesses

who have been identified reside in the Central District. 

A. Convenience of Parties and Plaintiffs’ Choice of Forum

Defendant asserts that a transfer is appropriate because the Central District is not less

convenient for Plaintiffs but rather, is more convenient for them. Further, to the extent a plaintiff’s

choice of forum is normally afforded deference, Defendant argues, that deference is slight in cases in

which the plaintiff has no contacts with the forum and in which the relevant events occurred outside

the forum. See Unisys Corp. v. Access Co., Ltd., 2005 WL 3157457 (N.D. Cal.) (holding that where

plaintiff did not have principal place of business in forum and where operative events did not occur

in forum, plaintiff’s choice of forum was entitled to only minimal consideration). Plaintiffs do not

Case 3:05-cv-03435-JCS Document 28 Filed 01/13/06 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

4

dispute that the Central District would be more convenient for them. Nor do they dispute that their

choice of forum is entitled to less deference under these circumstances. Nonetheless, they assert that

“less deference does not mean no deference at all” and therefore, their choice of forum should be

respected. 

The Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ choice of forum should be afforded little deference. 

Plaintiffs do not dispute that they have no relevant contacts with this District. They also concede

that in choosing this District, they were simply seeking a forum in which there would be less court

congestion and a more sympathetic jury. See Reiffin v. Microsoft, 104 F. Supp. 2d 48, 54 n. 12

(D.D.C. 2000) (plaintiff’s choice of forum is given little deference where it is apparent plaintiff is

engaged in forum shopping and where alternate forum is equally convenient). Further, any

deference afforded is outweighed by the fact that the Central District is a more convenient forum for

Plaintiffs than this District. 

B. Convenience of Witnesses and Ease of Access to Proof

“To demonstrate an inconvenience to witnesses, the moving party must identify relevant

witnesses, state their location and describe their testimony and its relevance.” Unisys Corp. v.

Access Co., Ltd., 2005 WL 3157457 at * 4 (quoting Security and Exchange Commission v. Rose

Fund, LLC, 2004 WL 2445242 (N.D. Cal.)). Defendant has identified six passengers who witnessed

the relevant events, three of whom reside in the Central District of California and three of whom

reside in New York. See Declaration of Todd C. Worthe, Esq. in Support of Motion to Transfer

(“Worthe Decl.”), ¶ 5. One of these passengers, Anna Ruiz, has provided a written statement

describing the events at issue, which Defendant filed in support of the Motion. See Worthe Decl.,

Ex. E. Defendant has also presented evidence that the two flight attendants who wrote event reports

about the events at issue, Monica Balderrama and Ashley Murphy, are based in Los Angeles. See

Worthe Decl., ¶¶ 7-8. These reports also were filed in support of the motion. Worthe Decl., Exs. F

& G. One of them, by flight attendant Monica Balderrama, states that she was not personally

involved in the events but rather, learned of the facts described in the report from the flight

attendants who were involved. Id., Ex. G. Finally, Defendant notes in its Reply brief that because

Case 3:05-cv-03435-JCS Document 28 Filed 01/13/06 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

Plaintiffs reside in the Central District, so will the medical expert retained to examine Plaintiffs in

connection with their claim for emotional distress damages.

Plaintiffs counter that Defendant has only established that a transfer will be convenient for

one passenger witness, Anna Ruiz, and one flight attendant, Ashley Murphy, because these are the

only witnesses identified for whom Defendant has offered admissible evidence concerning their

possible testimony. In particular, Plaintiffs assert that the report by Monica Balderrama should not

be considered because it is hearsay. As to the remaining witnesses, Plaintiffs note that several reside

outside California and thus will not be affected by a transfer. 

The Court rejects Plaintiffs’ position. Plaintiffs have cited to no authority indicating that

Defendant must present admissible testimony by the potential witnesses where, as here, it is

undisputed that the individuals who have been identified witnessed the disputed events and the

relevance of their testimony is obvious. Even as to Monica Balderrama, who acknowledges that she

was not involved in the events at issue, it is entirely conceivable that her testimony may be relevant

and admissible at trial under an exception to the hearsay rule. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that

the convenience of the out-of-state witness will likely be unaffected in any significant way by a

transfer. However, it does not discount the significance of the fact that five of the eight non-party

witnesses identified reside in the Central District and the medical expert will also almost certainly

reside in the Central District. Should this action proceed to trial, the testimony of these witnesses

will likely be of great significance. Therefore, the Court concludes that the convenience of the nonparty witnesses and access to proof support transfer.

C. Contacts with the Forum

Another factor the Court considers significant is the absence of any connection between the

events at issue in this case and the Northern District of California, which Plaintiffs do not dispute. 

Nor are the contacts between this District and the parties significant. Indeed, Plaintiffs have none

other than their counsel’s office address, which is not to be considered under § 1404(a). See E & J

Gallo Winery v. F. & P.S.P.A., 899 F. Supp. 465, 466 (N.D. Cal. 1994). Therefore, this District has

no interest in this action. In contrast, the contacts with the Central District of California are

substantial. The Central District of California is where Plaintiffs purchased the tickets that

Case 3:05-cv-03435-JCS Document 28 Filed 01/13/06 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

constitute the contract allegedly breached and where Plaintiffs reside. It is also where Plaintiffs

were attempting to fly when the relevant events occurred and where they allegedly incurred the

inconvenience of retrieving their car. Under these circumstances, the Central District clearly has a

greater interest in the litigation than this District, supporting transfer to the Central District.

IV. CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs have filed this action in the Northern District, even at their own admitted

inconvenience, in the hopes of obtaining a favorable forum. In light of the lack of local interest and

the substantial contacts with the Central District, the Court concludes that transfer to the Central

District is in the interest of justice.

The Motion is GRANTED. The Clerk is instructed to forward the file in this case to the

Central District of California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2006

 

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03435-JCS Document 28 Filed 01/13/06 Page 6 of 6