Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04220/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04220-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Warren Gibson,

Plaintiff,

 v.

Greg LeMond, et al.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 06-04220 JW 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

I. INTRODUCTION

Warren Gibson (“Gibson” or “Plaintiff") filed this suit against Greg LeMond (“LeMond”)

and LeMond Cycling, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”) seeking to compel arbitration or damages for

breach of contract. Plaintiff initially brought this action in the Santa Clara County Superior Court of

California, and Defendants removed to the Northern District of California. Presently before the

Court is Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue. (hereafter “Motion,” Docket Item No. 7.) The

Court found the motion appropriate for submission without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 

Based on the papers submitted to date, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion. 

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges the following:

In approximately 1983, Gibson began to negotiate personal endorsement and

appearances contracts on behalf of LeMond. (Notice of Removal, Ex. A: Complaint,

hereafter “Complaint,” Docket Item No. 1, ¶ 7.) Gibson also was involved in securing

Case 5:06-cv-04220-JW Document 19 Filed 11/27/06 Page 1 of 5
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

license agreements and finding business opportunities for LeMond. (Complaint ¶ 7.) From

1983 until 1999, pursuant to an oral agreement, Gibson was paid a commission of 15% of the

gross receipts for contracts and business opportunities secured on LeMond’s behalf. 

(Complaint ¶ 7.) 

On approximately July 10, 1999, in Los Gatos, California, Gibson and LeMond

formalized their prior oral agreement in writing. (Complaint ¶ 8-9.) The written agreement

included the same payment terms as the prior oral agreement. (Complaint ¶ 8-9.) The

written agreement also contained an arbitration clause. (Complaint ¶ 9.) 

In 1999, Gibson negotiated a contract on behalf of LeMond with Protective

Technologies, Inc. (“PTI”). (Complaint ¶ 10.) The PTI contract was to commence on

February 1, 2000 and last for an initial term of ten years, to be followed by two five-year

renewal options. (Complaint ¶ 11.) Per the agreement between Gibson and LeMond, Gibson

received 15% of the amounts received by LeMond from the PTI contract. (Complaint ¶

12,13.) In 2002, PTI breached the contract; LeMond successfully sued PTI for the breach

and was awarded damages in February 2005. (Complaint ¶ 12,13.) Gibson was paid the

15% commission by LeMond until January 2005; Gibson, however, contends he did not

received any additional compensation resulting from LeMond’s successful litigation of the

PTI contract. (Complaint ¶ 12,13.) 

In August 2002, Gibson negotiated a sublicense and personal services agreement on

behalf of Defendants. (Complaint ¶ 14.) Under this agreement, LeMond was compensated

by royalties paid every three months. (Complaint ¶ 15.) Gibson received 15% commission

on these royalties from 2002 through March 2004. In March 2004, LeMond began accruing

rather than receiving royalties. LeMond compensated Gibson at a flat rate of $3,000 per

month. Gibson was actually owed compensation of $9,000 per month. (Complaint ¶ 16.) 

On June 7, 2006, Gibson filed this action in the Santa Clara County Superior Court of

California seeking to compel arbitration or, the alternative, damages for breach of contract. On July

Case 5:06-cv-04220-JW Document 19 Filed 11/27/06 Page 2 of 5
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

7, 2006, Defendants removed this case to the Northern District of California. Defendants now move

the Court to transfer the matter to the District of Minnesota. 

III. DISCUSSION

A district court may transfer a case pending before it to “any other district or division where

it might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Plaintiff’s choice of forum, however, is accorded

substantial weight, and a court will not grant a motion under § 1404(a) unless the defendant makes a

strong showing of inconvenience. See Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d

834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986).

The decision whether to grant a motion under § 1404(a) turns on the facts of the particular

case. Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000). Factors to be weighed in

deciding such a motion include: (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 contact 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;

(8) the ease of access to sources of proof; (9) the presence of a forum selection clause; and (10) the

relevant public policy of the forum state. Id. at 498-99. 

In this case, Plaintiff’s choice of forum carries significant weight. Not only is Plaintiff a

California resident, but the main agreement underlying Plaintiff’s claim–the one between Plaintiff

and LeMond–was negotiated and executed in Los Gatos, California. Additionally, Defendants had

contact with this district when they negotiated the contract or otherwise dealt with Plaintiff. 

Defendants contend that the Northern District of California is an inconvenient forum because

all of their witnesses are in Minnesota. (Motion at 1.) Defendants identify a total of four witnesses

in Minnesota, but only two of these witnesses purport to testify about the agreement between

Case 5:06-cv-04220-JW Document 19 Filed 11/27/06 Page 3 of 5
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 other two witnesses identified will purportedly testify about an agreement Plaintiff

procured on behalf of LeMond and the litigation involving the contract with PTI. (See Motion at

10.)

4

Plaintiff and LeMond.1 (See Motion at 10.) Significantly, Defendants do not contend that any of

these individuals are unwilling, non-party witnesses who would need to be subject to the Court’s

subpoena power in order to ensure their attendance at trial.

Overall, the inconveniences articulated by Defendants do not outweigh Plaintiff’s interest in

litigating this action in the Northern District of California. Plaintiff’s case has significant

connections to this forum and, as such, it should not be transferred.

IV. CONCLUSION

The Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue to the District of Minnesota.

The Court set an Initial Case Management Conference on December 18, 2006 at 10 AM. Pursuant

to the Civil Local Rules of the Court, the parties shall file a joint case management statement no

later than ten (10) days before the date of the conference.

Dated: November 27, 2006 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-04220-JW Document 19 Filed 11/27/06 Page 4 of 5
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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Denise Suzanne Rahne dsrahne@rkmc.com

M. Jean Starcevich jstarcevich@pacbell.net

Michael A. Geibelson mageibelson@rkmc.com

Robert Myles Tobin sjhlaw@aol.com

Dated: November 27, 2006 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:06-cv-04220-JW Document 19 Filed 11/27/06 Page 5 of 5