Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01271/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01271-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ameritanx, Inc.
Counter Claimant
James Arnott
Counter Claimant
Duward M. Langford
Counter Defendant

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DUWARD M. LANGFORD, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

AMERITANZ, INC., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F 05-1271 AWI DLB

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR A TRANSFER OF

VENUE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §

1404(a)

(Document #13)

In this removed action, Plaintiff Duward M. Langford sues Defendant Ameritanx, Inc.,

Defendant James Arnott, and Doe Defendants for breach of contract and other state law

violations stemming from alleged agreements between Plaintiff and Defendant Arnott concerning

the refurbishment and resale of surplus military compress gas cylinders (“cylinders”). The court

has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the parties are citizens of different states

and over $75,000.00 is in controversy.

BACKGROUND

On August 18, 2005, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Tulare County Superior Court. 

The first count alleges breach of contract based on the parties’ alleged agreement that Plaintiff

would withdraw a bid to purchase cylinders from the government if Defendants would sell

Plaintiff some of the cylinders. The second count alleges breach of contract for work performed

and common counts for money owed based on the parties’ alleged agreement that Plaintiff would

arrange for the shipment of the cylinders. The third count alleges intentional interference with a

contract and conversion based on Defendants’ delivery of unusable cylinders to Plaintiff’s

Case 1:05-cv-01271-AWI-DLB Document 21 Filed 05/13/06 Page 1 of 17
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

customer, Fire King. The fourth count alleges breach of contract, deceit, conversion,

interference with contract, and interference with prospective business advantage based on

Defendants’ selling of cylinders to Plaintiff’s customers without paying Plaintiff the agreed

commission. 

On October 6, 2005, Defendants removed this action to this court because the Defendants

are citizens of Ohio, Plaintiff is a citizen of California, and more than $75,000.00 is in

controversy.

On October 6, 2005, Defendants filed an answer to the complaint.

On February 10, 2006, Defendants filed a motion to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1404(a) and the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Defendants contend that this action could

have been brought in Ohio, Ohio is a more convenient forum for the parties and witnesses, Ohio

is most familiar with the governing law, it will be more cost effective to litigate in Ohio, and the

prospective witnesses are Defendants’ employees, who are outside the compulsory process of this

court.

On March 6, 2006, Plaintiff filed an opposition. Plaintiff contends that his choice of

forum should not be disturbed. Plaintiff argues that Defendant Arnott’s act of telephoning

Plaintiff in California, proposing, negotiating, and then reaching agreements over the phone

provides sufficient contacts with California. Plaintiff argues that Defendants have not shown

that there exists in Ohio witnesses, voluminous documents, or physical evidence that cannot be

brought to California. Plaintiff argues that this court is more familiar with the law. Plaintiff

states that he is over 80 years old and his counsel is present in California. Plaintiff contends that

transferring this action to Ohio would merely shift the burden from Defendants to Plaintiff. 

On March 20, 2006, Defendants filed a reply. Defendants argue that Defendant Arnott

made no telephone call to Plaintiff in California to create a contractual relationship. Defendants

contend that all events concerning Defendants’ and Plaintiff’s agreements occurred in Ohio or

Virginia. 

Case 1:05-cv-01271-AWI-DLB Document 21 Filed 05/13/06 Page 2 of 17
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

LEGAL STANDARD

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides: “For the convenience of 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). This statute partially displaces the

common law doctrine of forum non conveniens. Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co.,

805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986); Miskow v. Boeing Co., 664 F.2d 205, 207, (9th Cir. 1981). 

The purpose of § 1404(a) is “to prevent the waste of time, energy, and money and to protect

litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense.” Van Dusen

v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964); Kawamoto v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 225 F. Supp. 2d

1209, 1213 (D. Haw. 2002). “Section 1404(a) is intended to place discretion in the district court

to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an ‘individualized, cases by case consideration of

convenience and fairness.’” Stewart Organization, Inc. v. RICOH Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988)

(quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622 (1964)). A motion for transfer lies within the

broad discretion of the district court, and must be determined on an individualized basis. Jones v.

GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh

Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988)).

In order to transfer a case under § 1404(a), the “defendant must make a strong showing of

inconvenience to warrant upsetting the plaintiff’s choice of forum.” Decker, 805 F.2d at 843. 

The district court must weigh numerous factors when deciding whether to transfer a case under

Section 1404(a):

A motion to transfer venue under § 1404(a) requires the court to weigh multiple

factors in its determination whether transfer is appropriate in a particular case. 

For example, the court may consider: (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. 

Additionally, the presence of a forum selection clause is a “significant factor” in

the court's § 1404(a) analysis . . . [and] the relevant public policy of the forum

state, if any, is at least as significant a factor in the § 1404(a) balancing.

Case 1:05-cv-01271-AWI-DLB Document 21 Filed 05/13/06 Page 3 of 17
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

Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000); Warfield v. Gardner, 346

F.Supp.2d 1033, 1043 (D. Ariz. 2004). The Northern District of California utilizes slightly

modified factors that include consideration of convenience to parties and witnesses, feasability of

consolidation of other claims, local interest in the controversy, and the court congestion of the

two forums. See Williams v. Bowman, 157 F.Supp.2d 1103, 1106 (N.D. Cal. 2001).

FACTS

A. Facts Alleged in the Complaint

The complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s businesses consist primarily of the

purchase and resale of used compress gas cylinders (“cylinders”).

The complaint alleges that both Plaintiff and Defendants bid on a contract offered for sale

by the Defense Reutilization Military Organization (“DRMO”) to purchase surplus cylinders

generated from a Richmond, Virginia military facility. The complaint alleges that the DRMO

contract was to sell 15,000 ICC-1800 cylinders over the course of two years, for a total of 30,000

cylinders. The DRMO contract included a term that the government could increase the quantity

of cylinders that the purchaser was obligated to purchase by up to 50%. The complaint alleges

that Plaintiff was the first place bidder for this contract and Defendants were the second place

bidder.

The complaint alleges that Defendants offered to Plaintiff that if Plaintiff withdrew from

the DRMC contract bidding, Defendants would sell Plaintiff all cylinders from the DRMO

contract that Plaintiff needed at $20.00 per ICC-1800 cylinder. The complaint alleges that by

referencing the DRMO contract in terms of the quantities of cylinders that would become

available, the parties intended that if Plaintiff accepted Defendants offer, Defendants would be

obligated to sell Plaintiff those ICC-1800 cylinders that Plaintiff requested in the normal course

of his business, up to a maximum of 45,000 ICC-1800 cylinders over two years. The

complaint alleges that at the time of the offer, Defendants knew and understood that Plaintiff

possessed commitments from his downstream purchasers to purchase 1,056 ICC-1800 cylinders

Case 1:05-cv-01271-AWI-DLB Document 21 Filed 05/13/06 Page 4 of 17
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

at $ 30.00 per cylinder and that Plaintiff stood to earn a $10.00 per cylinder profit. The

complaint alleges that Plaintiff accepted Defendants’ offer by withdrawing his bid on the DRMO

contract.

The complaint alleges that Defendants have breached the agreement by failing to sell

Plaintiff all of the ICC-1800 cylinders Plaintiff’s business reasonably required, up to a maximum

of 45,000 cylinders, at $20.00 per cylinder. The complaint alleges that as a result of Defendants’

conduct, Plaintiff has suffered lost profits.

The complaint also alleges that on or about July 22, 2004, Defendants and Plaintiff

agreed that Plaintiff would record the serial numbers of and arrange for the shipment to

Defendants in Ohio, a substantial number of surplus cylinders stockpiled in Richmond, Virginia

for an agreed-upon price of $3.00 per cylinder. Defendants knew that to accomplish this work,

Plaintiff would have to travel from California to the military facility in Richmond, Virginia. The

complaint alleges that the parties further agreed that Defendants would pay the $3.00 per cylinder

price to Plaintiff in the form of a credit against Plaintiff’s purchase of cylinders from Defendants,

which Defendants had agreed to sell Plaintiff at a price of $20.00 per cylinder.

The complaint alleges that Plaintiff fully performed all obligations and duties under this

contract by recording the serial numbers and loading and shipping the 18,320 cylinders produced

by the DRMO contracting officer. The complaint alleges Plaintiff could not perform his

obligations on the last 3,760 cylinders because Defendants refused to take them. The complaint

alleges Defendants interfered with and caused the stoppage of Plaintiff’s performance of his

duties. The complaint alleges that on two occasions Plaintiff and a helper traveled from Virginia

to Defendants’ facility in Greenfield, Ohio, and performed a days worth of labor to clear the

obstacles Defendants had placed or allowed to be placed. The complaint alleges that on another

occasion, Defendants intentionally hindered and blocked Plaintiff’s performance such that

Plaintiff and his helper were idle for 29 days. 

The complaint alleges that Defendants have refused to pay Plaintiff money owed under

Case 1:05-cv-01271-AWI-DLB Document 21 Filed 05/13/06 Page 5 of 17
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

the terms of this contract. The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs have suffered monetary losses,

including the cost of an air conditioner that Plaintiff purchased on Defendants’ behalf.

The complaint alleges that, pursuant to the agreement obligating Plaintiff to purchase

cylinders from Defendants, Plaintiff had inspected and prepared for delivery to a downstream

customer (Fire King) a shipment of 320 cylinders. The complaint alleges that Defendants

intentionally substituted a number of the useable 320 cylinders with unuseable cylinders and kept

the useable cylinders from themselves. The complaint alleges that as a result, Fire Kind rejected

a number of the delivered cylinders and refused to pay part of the invoice.

The complaint alleges that during the course of performing their contractual obligations,

Defendants demanded and insisted that shipments of cylinders to Plaintiff’s downstream

customers be made from Defendants’ Greenfield, Ohio facility and be accompanied by purchase

orders issued directly from Defendants. This resulted in Plaintiff divulging the identities and

contact information of his downstream customers. The complaint alleges that Defendants have

sold cylinders to Plaintiffs’ downstream customers for $30.00, and Defendants have not paid

Plaintiff his $10.00 per cylinder profit. The complaint alleges that Defendants have essentially

stolen Plaintiff’s customer list, which Plaintiff cultivated over more than twenty years in the

industry.

B. Defendant Arnott’s Affidavits

Defendants offer two affidavits from Defendant Arnott in support of their motion to

transfer. Defendant Arnott’s Affidavits allege that Defendant Arnott is the sole owner and

incorporator of Defendant Ameritanx, Inc. Ameritanx Inc. is located in Greenfield, Ohio. 

There are currently five employees of Ameritanx, Inc., including Steve Carroll and Corey Miller,

all of whom are residents of Ohio.

Defendant Arnott’s Affidavits allege that Defendant Arnott never placed a telephone call

to Plaintiff in California regarding any offer to sell, resell, or withdraw any bids for the July 15,

2004, DRMO No. 31-4020 contract. Defendant Arnott’s Affidavits allege that Defendant

Case 1:05-cv-01271-AWI-DLB Document 21 Filed 05/13/06 Page 6 of 17
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 7

Arnott was awarded the DRMO contract on July 28, 2004, after Norm Johnson withdrew his bid. 

Defendant Arnott’s Affidavits allege that Defendant Arnott did not know Norm Johnson nor

about any relationship between Plaintiff and Norm Johnson.

Defendant Arnott’s Affidavits allege that Defendant Arnott did not ask Plaintiff to travel

to Virginia. Defendant Arnott’s Affidavits allege that Plaintiff traveled to Virginia to inspect

and bid on another DRMO contract, NO-31-4021. Both Defendant Arnott and Plaintiff placed

bids on this contract. 

Defendant Arnott’s Affidavits allege that Plaintiff’s Memorandum Contra was signed on

August 9, 2004 and September 9, 2004. The Memorandum Contra was required under

governmental regulation to allow Plaintiff to assist Defendants in recording the serial numbers

and shipping the cylinders to Ohio.

Defendant Arnott’s Affidavits allege that on September 15, 2004, Plaintiff and Defendant

Arnott entered into an agreement, which was signed in Greenfield, Ohio. Defendant Arnott’s

Affidavits allege that this agreement allowed Plaintiff to record and ship cylinders from

Richmond, Virginia to Defendant’s Ohio facility for the price of $2.00 per cylinder. Defendant

Arnott’s Affidavits allege that Plaintiff was to receive a commission of $10.00 per cylinder for

any sales of Defendants’ cylinders made to Plaintiff’s customers, which included the $2.00 per

cylinder recording fee. Defendant Arnott’s Affidavits allege that Plaintiff began supplying this

same service to Queen Cylinder Company for $2.75 per cylinder. Defendant Arnott’s Affidavits

allege that after Plaintiff made his arrangement with Queen Cylinder, he attempted to renegotiate

the terms of the agreement with Defendants and demanded more money. 

Defendant Arnott’s Affidavits allege that Steve Carroll and Cory Miller were present and

in the same building with Plaintiff during the five week period Plaintiff was in Ohio at the

Ameritanx facility. Defendant Arnott’s Affidavits allege that Steve Carroll and Cory Miller are

necessary witnesses to this action. Defendant Arnott’s Affidavits allege that Defendants still

have several hundred cylinders in the Ohio facility that were part of DRMO bid No. 31-4020. 

Case 1:05-cv-01271-AWI-DLB Document 21 Filed 05/13/06 Page 7 of 17
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

 Plaintiff’s Affidavit in this respect is inconsistent with the complaint. The complaint

alleges Plaintiff only had buyers to purchase 1,056 cylinders.

8

Defendant Arnott’s Affidavits allege that the allegedly faulty cylinders sent to Fire King were

from DRMO bid No. 31-4020.

C. Plaintiff’s Affidavit

Plaintiff offers the Affidavit of Plaintiff in opposition to the motion to transfer. 

Plaintiff’s Affidavit alleges that Norm Johnson is well-known in the industry to bid for resale to

Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s Affidavit alleges that Norm Johnson made the high bid on DRMO No. 31-

4020. Plaintiff’s Affidavit alleges that Defendant Arnott called Plaintiff at his office in

California, regarding Norm Johnson’s bid. Plaintiff’s Affidavit alleges that Defendant Arnott

made plain during the conversation that he knew Norm Johnson’s first place bid was made

anticipating a re-sale to Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s Affidavit alleges that during this call, Defendant

Arnott proposed that if Plaintiff had the high bid withdrawn, Defendant Arnott would sell

Plaintiff all the cylinders Plaintiff could use. Plaintiff’s Affidavit alleges that they agreed over

the phone. Plaintiff’s Affidavit alleges that once they agreed, Defendant Arnott gave Plaintiff

his authority to act as Defendants’ agent at the Richmond, Virginia facility. Plaintiff’s Affidavit

alleges that Plaintiff did not embark from California for Richmond, Virgina until he knew that he

and Defendant Arnott had an agreement.

Plaintiff’s Affidavit alleges that Plaintiff only went to Defendants’ Ohio facility after

Plaintiff and his helper had shipped lots of cylinders to Ohio. Plaintiff’s Affidavit alleges that

Plaintiff went there when Defendant Arnott stopped Plaintiff’s performance because Defendants

could not handle any more of the cylinders.

Plaintiff’s Affidavit alleges that Plaintiff had commitments from some of his downstream

buyers to purchase 4,480 cylinders before Plaintiff left California.1 Plaintiff’s Affidavit alleges

that Defendant Arnott arranged it so that Defendant Arnott billed Plaintiff’s customers directly

on Defendant Arnott’s invoices, and the customers paid Plaintiff directly, through his California

Case 1:05-cv-01271-AWI-DLB Document 21 Filed 05/13/06 Page 8 of 17
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 9

bank. 

Plaintiff’s Affidavit alleges that none of the faulty cylinders that Defendant Arnott

substituted into the shipment to Fire King remain in Ohio. Plaintiff’s Affidavit alleges that they

were all shipped to Fire King in Seattle, Washington. 

Plaintiff’s Affidavit alleges that Steve and Cory were never present when Defendant

Arnott and Plaintiff had any conversation about the terms of their agreements. Plaintiff’s

Affidavit alleges that Plaintiff did not discuss the terms of the agreement with Steve or Cory.

Plaintiff’s Affidavit alleges that Plaintiff is 86 years old. Plaintiff is an insulin-dependent

diabetic, had heart bypass surgery in late 2002, and has other health problems. Plaintiff’s

Affidavit alleges that traveling long distances is not easy for Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s Affidavit

alleges that Norm Johnson lives and works in Auburn, California. Plaintiff’s Affidavit alleges

that Norm Johnson has bad asthma and cannot fly.

DISCUSSION

Defendants contend that this action should be transferred to Ohio pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1404(a). Defendants contend that this action should have been brought in Ohio, and all factors

indicate that Ohio is the better forum.

A. Where the Suit Might Have Been Brought

Transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is limited to courts where the action “might have

been brought.” The moving party must demonstrate that the proposed transferee court would

have subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and would be a proper venue for the

action. Hoffman, 363 U.S. at 343-44. Defendants are located in Ohio. As such, the United

States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio would have personal jurisdiction and

venue over Defendants. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) (providing venue is proper in “a judicial district

where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State.”). Just as this court has

diversity subject matter jurisdiction over this action, the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Ohio would have subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Thus, this

Case 1:05-cv-01271-AWI-DLB Document 21 Filed 05/13/06 Page 9 of 17
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 10

action could have been brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of

Ohio.

B. Factors Regarding Transfer

The court should adjudicate motions for transfer according to an individualized,

case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness. Jones, 211 F.3d at 498. The defendant

“must make a strong showing of inconvenience to warrant upsetting the plaintiff's choice of

forum.” Decker, 805 F.2d at 843. The moving party bears the burden of establishing that the

balance of conveniences favors transfer. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Savage, 611

F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979). As discussed above, there are numerous factors the court should

consider when deciding whether to transfer pursuant to Section 1404(a).

1. The location where the relevant agreements were negotiated and executed

The parties dispute where the relevant agreements were negotiated, where the relevant

agreements were executed, and what the agreements were for. According to Plaintiff’s facts, all

agreements at issue in this action were made over then phone, when Plaintiff was in California

and Defendant Arnott was presumably in Ohio. According to Plaintiff, over the phone, Plaintiff

and Defendant Arnott agreed: (1) Plaintiff would have Norm Johnson withdraw his bid on 31-

4020; (2) Defendant Arnott would then sell Plaintiff any cylinders he needed from 31-4020 at

$20.00 per cylinder; and (3) Plaintiff would go to Virginia and prepare the cylinders and send

them to Defendants in Ohio and Defendant would pay Plaintiff $3.00 per cylinder for this

service. Defendants offer evidence that the agreements concerning Defendants giving Plaintiff

a commission for sales and Plaintiff recording and shipping the cylinders to Ohio were negotiated

in Virginia, and executed in Virginia and Ohio. As for the agreement concerning Plaintiff

preparing and sending the cylinders, Defendants claim that they agreed to pay Plaintiff $2.00 per

cylinder, and the $10.00 commission Plaintiff would make on sales to his customers included the

$2.00 recoding and shipping fee. Defendants claim Defendant Arnott never called Plaintiff in

California and never asked Plaintiff to have Norm Johnson withdraw his high bid.

Case 1:05-cv-01271-AWI-DLB Document 21 Filed 05/13/06 Page 10 of 17
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 11

Defendants have the burden of showing that Ohio is a more appropriate forum for this 

action than California. See Jones, 211 F.3d at 499. Defendants have not shown that Ohio is a

more appropriate forum because the relevant agreements were negotiated and executed in Ohio. 

This action is premised on agreements Plaintiff claims were made over the phone, when Plaintiff

was in California. Defendants provide no evidence that the agreements discussed in the

complaint were made in Ohio. Rather, Defendants’ evidence shows that the agreements

underlying this action were never made. Defendants’ evidence is that any agreements between

the parties were reached in Virginia and Ohio and they were for different terms than those set

forth in the complaint and Plaintiff’s affidavit. Thus, Defendants have not shown that Ohio is a

more appropriate forum for this action because the agreements underlying this action were

negotiated and executed in Ohio. To the contrary, Defendants’ evidence shows that there is no

appropriate forum for this action because the agreements underlying this action were never made. 

Thus, the court cannot find that Defendants’ evidence shows Ohio is a more appropriate forum

based on where the agreements underlying this action were negotiated and executed.

2. The state that is most familiar with the governing law

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges numerous counts based on California law. There are no

counts based on Ohio law or federal law in this action. Defendants have argued generally that

Ohio law should govern, but have again explained this contention based on Defendants’ version

of events, alleging that no phone call was ever made to California. Defendants have not shown

that Ohio law should govern the agreements alleged in the complaint, as opposed to the

agreements Defendants’ contend the parties had. As this court sits in California, the Eastern

District is more familiar with the California law alleged in the complaint. This factor weighs

against transfer.

3. The plaintiff's choice of forum

The third factor weighs in favor of Plaintiff because Plaintiff chose a California forum

and resides in the Eastern District of California. This factor is generally given significant weight

Case 1:05-cv-01271-AWI-DLB Document 21 Filed 05/13/06 Page 11 of 17
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 12

when the plaintiff resides in the chosen forum. Warfield v. Gardner, 346 F.Supp.2d 1033, 1044

(D.Ariz. 2004); Williams v. Bowman, 157 F.Supp.2d 1103, 1006 (N.D.Cal. 2001). Because

Plaintiff resides in the Eastern District of California, this factor weighs against transfer. 

Defendants do point out that Plaintiff did not choose this forum. Rather, Plaintiff chose

the Tulare County Superior Court, and this action is currently in this court because Defendants

removed the action. While Plaintiff did not choose this court to adjudicate this action, Plaintiff

did choose a California state court lying in this judicial district, and Plaintiff has indicated a

strong desire to litigate this action in this court. Because there is no indication that Plaintiff’s

choice of forum was a result of forum shopping, see Williams, 157 F.Supp.2d at 1006, the court

still finds that this factor weighs against transfer. 

4. The respective parties’ contacts with the forum

The fourth factor is not entirely clear. Obviously, Plaintiff has substantial contacts with

California. Plaintiff lives in California and appears to run his purchase and resale business from

California. What is unclear are the precise contacts of Defendants. Defendants offer no

evidence regarding their contacts with California, other than to deny the phone calls during

which the agreements underlying this action were allegedly made. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges

that Defendants have maintained close, systematic, and regular business related contracts with

California since 1998, when Defendants began purchasing cylinders from Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s

complaint alleges that Defendant Arnott has traveled to Plaintiff’s Barstow facility, and while in

California, Defendants purchased large quantities of cylinders from California. Plaintiff’s

complaint also alleges that Defendants have a steady stream of customers in California, and

Defendants have shipped their product to customers in California. In summary, Plaintiff’s

complaint indicates that Defendants have had contact with California in their business. 

However, these contacts do not appear to be substantial. Absent evidence from Defendants

showing no contacts with California, this factor does not greatly weigh for or against transfer, but

does tilt toward a California forum. 

Case 1:05-cv-01271-AWI-DLB Document 21 Filed 05/13/06 Page 12 of 17
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 13

5. The contacts relating to the plaintiff’s counts in the chosen forum

As with the first factor, the parties dispute whether there were contacts with California

regarding the parties’ agreements. Defendants deny any phone call to California and contend

that any representations and agreements occurred in Virginia and Ohio. Plaintiff provides

evidence that the agreements at issue in the complaint were made over the phone, when

Defendant Arnott placed a phone call to Plaintiff in California. It is Defendants’ burden to show

inconvenience under Section 1404(a). However, as with the first factor, Defendants have only

provided evidence that the agreements alleged in the complaint were never made. Such

evidence does not weigh in favor of transferring this case to Ohio; If true, this evidence simply

supports an ultimate judgment in Defendants’ favor. 

6. The differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums/Relative court congestion

The sixth factor is unknown as no dollar amounts, economic data, or court data have been

provided. Furthermore, no party has expressly addressed this factor. Because there is no

argument made or evidence provided, it is a neutral factor. 

7. The availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling non-party

witnesses/Convenience of Witnesses

Live testimony is a primary reason courts are concerned about the convenience of

witnesses. Sackett v. Denver & R.G.W.R. Co., 603 F.Supp. 260, 262 (D.Colo.1985). A court will

therefore favor a forum where non-party witnesses will fall under the court's subpoena power.

Commercial Solvents Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 371 F.Supp. 247, 250 (S.D.N.Y.1974). Any

witnesses who reside in the Southern District of Ohio can be compelled to attend trial in the

Southern District of Ohio court. Any witnesses who reside in the Eastern District of California

can be compelled to attend trial in this court. In his affidavit, Plaintiff indicates that he does not

believe Defendants’ employees will have relevant information, and Plaintiff implies that he does

not intend to subpoena Defendants’ employees. Plaintiff does not indicate what witnesses

would be unavailable to Plaintiff in Ohio. Plaintiff has not shown that, other than Norm

Case 1:05-cv-01271-AWI-DLB Document 21 Filed 05/13/06 Page 13 of 17
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 14

Johnson, his witnesses would be unable or unwilling to travel to Ohio to voluntarily to testify. 

While Plaintiff has shown Norm Johnson will not travel, Norm Johnson’s proposed testimony

has not been disclosed and it is unclear whether the parties could not make other arrangements to

preserve his testimony. In their evidence, Defendants imply that Steve Carroll and Cory Miller,

Defendants’ Ohio employees, may be relevant witnesses.

This factor does not greatly weigh in favor or against transfer. While Defendants

mention Steve Carroll and Cory Miller as possible witnesses, Defendants have not informed the

court what their testimony will be, why their testimony is relevant, and that they will be

unavailable without a subpoena. See A.J. Industries, Inc. v. United States Dist. Ct., 503 F.2d

384, 389 (9th Cir.1974); Florens Container v. Cho Yang Shipping, 245 F.Supp.2d 1086, 1092-93

(N.D. Cal. 2002); Williams, 157 F.Supp.2d at 1108. Without a more persuasive account,

Defendants, as the parties with the burden of proof, fail to establish that the convenience of the

witnesses factor weighs in favor of litigation in Ohio. Further, it appears that the Ohio witnesses

are also Defendants’ employees. There is not a showing that Defendants would be unable to

have them testify in California on Defendants’ behalf. In this case, no party has provided

sufficient information regarding any proposed witness’s testimony and unwillingness to

voluntarily appear that requires transfer to another jurisdiction so that the witness can be

subpoenaed. As such, this factor is neutral or tilts in favor of the current forum.

8. The ease of access to sources of proof

The eighth factor tilts in favor of Ohio. Evidence appears to come from Ohio, California,

Virginia, and Washington state. Maintaining suit in one district will cause some of the same

problems as maintaining it in another district. Defendants’ records are in Ohio. Plaintiff’s

records are presumably in California. Other records may be in Virginia. The defective

cylinders most likely are in Washington. Cylinders from the same lot as the defective cylinders

are in Ohio. In total, there is probably more physical evidence in Ohio than any other one

location because Defendants’ facility is in Ohio, the cylinders were refurbished in Ohio,

Case 1:05-cv-01271-AWI-DLB Document 21 Filed 05/13/06 Page 14 of 17
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 15

Defendants’ records are in Ohio, and remaining cylinders may be in Ohio. 

The party seeking a transfer cannot rely on vague generalizations as to the convenience

factors. The moving party is obligated to identify the key witnesses and evidence and provide a

statement why the witnesses and evidence are necessary. See Heller Financial, Inc. v. Midwhey

Powder Co., 883 F.2d 1286, 1293 (7th Cir. 1989). Defendants have not provided sufficient proof

that they will be prejudiced if they are required to produce their evidence in California. This is a

breach of contract action. The contracts and any written manifestations of the parties’

agreements do not appear to voluminous. Defendants have neither provided a list of specific

physical evidence that they need to maintain their defense nor shown that it would be difficult to

transport it to California. In the event Plaintiff demands considerable discovery from

Defendants that is found in Ohio, the court is confident that the parties and the assigned

Magistrate Judge can fashion a solution in which Defendants do not bear the entire burden of

mailing and transportation. While this factor does indicate Ohio is a better forum, it simply is

not strong enough to trump the factors against transfer. 

9. Convenience of the parties

This factor does not help either side. The competing forums, the Eastern District of

California and the Southern District of Ohio, are thousands of miles apart. For Defendants, it is

obviously more convenient to litigate in Ohio, and for the Plaintiff, California. This is a neutral

consideration. 

Plaintiff complains that he does not have counsel in Ohio. Defendants respond that their

counsel is inconvenienced by litigating this action in California, and Defendants’ counsel had to

seek admission to this court pro hoc vice. The word “counsel” is not found in Section 1404(a),

and the convenience of counsel is irrelevant and not a factor to be assessed in determining

whether to transfer a case under Section 1404(a). In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 206 (5th

Cir. 2004); Solomon v. Continental Am. Life Ins Co., 472 F.2d 1043, 1047 (3rd Cir. 1973);

Bunker v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 2006 WL 193856, *2 (N.D.Cal. 2006). This argument

Case 1:05-cv-01271-AWI-DLB Document 21 Filed 05/13/06 Page 15 of 17
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 16

will be given no weight.

10. Forum Selection Clause

No one has argued a forum selection clause and there is no such clause in the documents

provided by the parties. This is a neutral consideration.

11. Public Policy Considerations Of The Forums/Local Interest In The Controversy

No party has cited authority why California or Ohio have a greater interest in regulating

the conduct of agreements allegedly made over the phone, which resulted in performance in at

least four different states. Neither party adequately addresses this factor. Accordingly, this is a

neutral factor.

13. Conclusion

From the evidence submitted, it is clear that the parties dispute the terms of the

agreements between them. The parties also dispute when and where the agreements were

entered into. This action alleges breaches of agreements that Plaintiff maintains were entered

into when Defendant contacted Plaintiff in California over the phone. While disputing the

existence of these telephone agreements, Defendants have not offered sufficient argument or

evidence that a better place to litigate whether Defendants’ breached these agreements and

address Defendants’ defense that there are no agreements is Ohio rather than California. 

Defendants evidence, if taken as true, provides support for a finding that the agreements alleged

in the complaint did not occur and that this action should not be brought in any forum. 

Defendants have not met their burden of proof to show that Ohio is a better forum. 

 The Jones factors set considerations for the court in order to determine whether transfer

is proper under § 1404(a). As applied to this case, a number of factors are neutral. Except for

one factor, all other factors tilt toward a California forum. The one factor tilting toward an Ohio

forum is the fact more physical evidence appears to be in Ohio than any other potential forum. 

However, Defendants have not specifically listed the physical evidence they believe is necessary

in their moving papers, and Defendants have not shown that it would be overly burdensome to

Case 1:05-cv-01271-AWI-DLB Document 21 Filed 05/13/06 Page 16 of 17
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 17

present this evidence at trial in California. It is Defendants’ burden to make a “strong showing”

that transfer should be ordered. See Jones, 211 F.3d at 499; Decker, 805 F.2d at 843; Warfield,

346 F.Supp.2d at 1044; Robinson Corp., 304 F.Supp.2d at 1243; Williams, 157 F.Supp.2d at

1106. Defendants have provided insufficient evidence and have not met their burden for the

court to order a transfer under Section 1404(a). 

C. Forum Non-Conveyance

In their motion, Defendants also request transfer under the doctrine of forum non

conveniens. Section1404(a) partially displaces the common law doctrine of forum non

conveniens. Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986);

Miskow v. Boeing Co., 664 F.2d 205, 207 (9th Cir. 1981). For the same reasons why transfer is

not appropriate pursuant to Section 1404(a), the court finds that transfer under the doctrine of

forum non conveniens is also not appropriate.

ORDER

Accordingly, based on the above memorandum opinion, the court ORDERS that

Defendants’ motion to transfer venue for convenience under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and the

doctrine of forum non conveniens is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01271-AWI-DLB Document 21 Filed 05/13/06 Page 17 of 17