Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00103/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00103-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive &amp; Declaratory Relief

---

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 moving party in the motion is stated to be Eduardo Martinez, in both the notice of motion and points and

authorities. Another Defendant, Erasmo Martinez, purportedly is the nephew of Eduardo Martinez. Defendant filed an Errata

clarifying that the moving party is Erasmo Martinez. The opposition does not object to the notice or Errata. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFRED KARCHER, INC., CASE NO. CV-F-05-00103 OWW LJO

 ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

Plaintiff, TO TRANSFER VENUE (Doc. 52)

vs.

JONATHAN P. WALLERS, et al.,

Defendants.

 / 

By notice filed on May 24, 2005 and errata filed July 1, 2005, Defendant Erasmo Martinez moves

to transfer the action to the Central District, Riverside Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1406(a) or in

the alternative, to transfer for the convenience of parties and witnesses.1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This lawsuit emanates from the theft of approximately 1,650 Karcher K 2400 HH model

pressure power washers (the “Karcher Power Washers”) and other model washers which Plaintiff

Alfred Karcher, Inc. (“AKI”) owns, sells and distributes. The washers are manufactured through an

affiliate, American Kleaner Mfg., Co. (“AKM”). Between November 2003 and July 2004, the

Karcher Power Washers were stolen from AKM’s facility in Rancho Cucamonga, California.

Case 1:05-cv-00103-OWW -LJO Document 61 Filed 07/14/05 Page 1 of 5
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

 For purposes of this motion, the presence of the federal claim does not alter the venue analysis because venue for

the federal question in this case, like diversity, is based on defendant’s residence or location of events.

2

Plaintiff alleges that Erasmo Martinez (“Martinez”) stole the power washers, and other

equipment from AKI. Another defendant, John Evanski obtained the equipment from Martinez. 

Evanski in turn delivered the equipment to defendant Jonathan Wallers who listed them on Ebay for

purchase.

Plaintiff alleges conversion (First Claim), State Statutory recovery of personal property

(Second Claim), Interference with Contractual and Prospective Economic Advantage (Third Claim),

Federal Unfair Competition (Lanham Act) and State Unfair Competition (Fourth Claim) (trademark,

tradedress), Violation of the Lanham Act (Fifth Claim), Violation of State Unfair Competition (Sixth

Claim), Injunctive Relief (Seventh Claim). (Doc. 18, First Amended complaint.) Jurisdiction is

alleged to be based on diversity, although a federal claim is alleged.2

Plaintiff alleges venue in this District is proper because:

“at least one of the defendants resides in this District and the corporate

defendant’s principal office is in this District. Moreover a substantial

part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims stated in the

Complaint occurred in the District and Defendants conduct business in

this District.” (First Amended Complaint ¶ 7.)

ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION

Once federal jurisdiction is established, venue rules ensure the matter will be tried in the

proper federal district. A civil action which is based upon diversity of citizenship, as here, must be

brought: (1) in a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same

state; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the

action occurred; or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant was subject to personal jurisdiction

at the time the action began, if there is no other district in which the action may be brought. See 28

U.S.C. §1391(a). 

Proper Venue

Defendant Martinez initially argues that venue in this district is improper, pursuant to section

1406(a).

Case 1:05-cv-00103-OWW -LJO Document 61 Filed 07/14/05 Page 2 of 5
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

If a plaintiff commences the action in the wrong district, the court will upon motion, dismiss

the action for improper venue or “if it be in the interest of justice” transfer the case to any district

were it could have been brought. 28 U.S.C. §1406(a).

The original complaint was filed on January 25, 2005 and named a single defendant,

Jonathan P. Wallers, who is alleged to reside in this District. Thus, venue for the original complaint

was proper in Fresno.

On February 16, 2005, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint which added defendants

Gilbert Fernandez, John Evanski, John Evanski, Inc., dba Western Mfg. Corp, Erasmo Martinez and

Eduardo Martinez. Of these defendants, defendants Fernandez, Evanski, and Western Mfg. are

alleged to reside in this District. In addition to the residency of the defendants, the alleged wrongful

acts occurred in part in this District. Thus, venue in this district is proper because “any” of the

defendants reside in this District and the events giving rise to the action occurred here. Therefore,

the action is not subject to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1406(a).

Transfer for Convenience

Martinez argues that the Court should exercise its discretion and for the convenience of all,

transfer venue to the Central District.

Change of venue is authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) which provides:

For the convenience of the 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.

The moving defendant bears the burden on showing that the transfer is warranted. 

Commodity Futures Trading Comm’m v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979). The moving

party must show that at the time of filing the original complaint the transferee district would have

had subject matter jurisdiction and venue would have been proper. Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335,

342-343 (1960). Section 1404(a) requires that the transferee court be one in which the action "might

have been brought." As interpreted in Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 80 S.Ct. 1084, 4 L.Ed.2d

1254 (1960), this requirement remains a barrier to transfer at the defendant's instance, over the

plaintiff's objection, if at the time suit was originally brought the transferee district would have

Case 1:05-cv-00103-OWW -LJO Document 61 Filed 07/14/05 Page 3 of 5
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

 Plaintiff argues that the action “could not have been brought” in the Central District, because the original named

a Fresno resident as the sole defendant. Plaintiff did not cite to cases which address the same procedural history as in this

case, where plaintiff amended to add new defendants residing in a different district. The Court, however, need not address

this issue because it is unnecessary to the resolution of this motion.

4

lacked jurisdiction over the defendant or if venue there would have been improper.3

Courts generally will not order a transfer unless the “convenience” and “interest of justice”

considerations strongly favor venue elsewhere. Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Vigman, 764

F.2d 1309, 1317 (9th Cir. 1985). The party seeking a transfer has the burden to show that 

convenience of parties and witnesses and interest of justice require transfer to another district. 

Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979); Los Angeles

Memorial Coliseum Comm’n v. NFL, 89 F.R.D. 497, 499 (C.D. Cal. 1981). The party seeking

transfer has the burden to show that trial in the district where the action is pending will result in a

clear balance of inconveniences to him/her. Harris Trust & Sav. Bank v. SLT Warehouse, 605 F.

Supp. 225, 227 (N.D. Il. 1985). Although a plaintiff’s choice of forum is generally given great

deference, if the plaintiff is a non-resident, “. . .the rule is substantially attenuated. . ..” New Image v.

The Travelers Indemnity Co., 536 F.Supp. 58 (E.D. Pa. 1981). 

For transfer of venue, factors for court consideration include convenience of witnesses and

parties, judicial economy, relative ease of access to proof, availability of compulsory process, and

possibility of view of premises. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 241, n. 6, 102 S.Ct. 252,

258, n. 6 (1981); E & J Gallo Winery v. F. & P. S. p. A., 899 F.Supp. 465, 466 (E.D. Cal. 1994). The

convenience and interest of justice factors are addressed to the Court’s inherent discretion and

interpreted broadly to allow the Court to consider the particulars of each case. Lopez Perez v.

Hufstedler, 505 F.Supp. 39, 41 (D. D.C. 1980). Transfer rulings under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)

generally turn on practical considerations, including judicial economy (whether transfer will avoid

duplicative litigation, effect judicial economy and prevent waste of time and money). Van Dusen v.

Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964).

Here, the convenience of the parties does not warrant transfer. Four of the other defendants

reside in this District. Gilbert Fernandez, John Evanski, and John Evasnki, Inc., dba Western Mfg.

Corp. are alleged to reside in this District. These three defendants have joined in plaintiff’s

Case 1:05-cv-00103-OWW -LJO Document 61 Filed 07/14/05 Page 4 of 5
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

opposition to the motion to transfer. The another individual defendant, Jonathan Wallers, also is

alleged to reside in this district. While Martinez argues that he is a “man of little means,” plaintiff

has presented evidence that the other individual defendants are also wage earners who would be

endure hardship should the action be transferred. Thus, the transfer to the Central District, Riverside

Division would not be convenient for the remaining defendants.

In addition, defendant Martinez has not carried his burden that the convenience of the

witnesses warrants transfer to the Central District. Martinez identifies character witnesses and one

potential fact witness who will testify. On the other hand, Plaintiff identifies that fact witnesses are

located in Fresno. Thus, the Fresno witnesses would be inconvenienced should the action be

transferred. The balance of inconvenience does not tip in defendant Martinez’s favor. Harris Trust

& Sav. Bank v. SLT Warehouse Co., Inc., 605 F.Supp. 225, 227 (N.D. Ill. 1985) (the party seeking

transfer has the burden of demonstrating that trial in the district where the action is pending will

result in a clear balance of inconvenience to him.)

As plaintiff has argued, the transfer of venue to the Central District is for the benefit of

defendant Martinez.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, defendant Erasmo Martinez’s motion to transfer venue is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00103-OWW -LJO Document 61 Filed 07/14/05 Page 5 of 5