Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01738/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01738-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jarrod Decter
Plaintiff
Max Fresen
Defendant
Hayden Gill
Defendant
Mog Sales, LLC
Defendant
Robert Mudryk
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JARROD DECTER,

2:06-cv-1738-MCE-GGH

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MOG SALES, LLC, an Ohio

limited liability company,

HAYDEN GILL, an individual,

ROBERT MUDRYK, an individual,

MAX FRESEN, an individual, and

DOES 1 through 50, inclusive

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

Through the present suit, Plaintiff Decter alleges that

Defendants MOG Sales LLC (“MOG”), Hayden Gill (“Gill”), Robert

Mudryk (“Mudryk”), and Max Fresen (“Fresen”) committed fraud,

conversion, breach of contract, and breach of duty of loyalty

against him. 

///

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01738-MCE -GGH Document 22 Filed 12/14/06 Page 1 of 9
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

 All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the 1

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless otherwise noted.

 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 2

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 78-230(h). 

 The Court relies on the allegations contained in 3

Plaintiff’s Complaint, as well as those contained within his

declaration (see Decl. of Jarrod Decter, Ex. 1 to Pl.s’ Opp’n) in

reciting the alleged facts of this case.

2

Now before the Court is Defendants’ motion, pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and the doctrine of forum non 1

conveniens, to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or

alternatively for a transfer of this action to the Eastern

Division of the United States District Court for the Northern

District of Ohio. After carefully considering all the papers

filed by the parties, Defendants’ Motion to Transfer is GRANTED

and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction is

DISMISSED as moot.2

BACKGROUND3

Plaintiff is a resident of California. He alleges that in

2005, he owned and operated the website Gamergod.com out his

residence. Defendant MOG is a Limited Liability Corporation

operating under Ohio law and maintaining a principal place of

business in Cleveland, Ohio. Defendant Gill is President and

Defendant Mudryk is Chief Operating Officer/Chief Information of

Defendant MOG, both reside in Ohio. Defendant Fresen is a

resident of Massachusetts and is currently an employee of

Defendant MOG. 

Case 2:06-cv-01738-MCE -GGH Document 22 Filed 12/14/06 Page 2 of 9
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

 Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiff was employed by 4

Defendant MOG. Rather, Defendants assert that the employment was

a “temporary arrangement to be used until Decter [Plaintiff] and

MOG were able to get their anticipate entity formed under Ohio

law and operating in Ohio” (Def.’s Reply 4: 6-9).

3

In May or June of 2005, Plaintiff met Defendant Gill online,

using Microsoft Live Windows Messenger. The online communication

led to a business relationship between Plaintiff and Defendants

premised on the expansion of Plaintiff’s website. 

In June of 2005, Plaintiff traveled to Ohio to discuss the

anticipated business venture with Defendant Gill and Defendant

Mudryk. While the details of the new partnership were not

finalized, the meeting, which lasted several days, led to

significant progress. At the conclusion of the negotiations,

Defendant MOG hired an Ohio law firm to draft the necessary 

papers for creating a new legal entity. Additionally, in belief

that a final partnership would be reached, Plaintiff claims that

he disclosed confidential codes and passwords necessary to

operate Gamergod.com to Defendants. Plaintiff also hired

Defendant Fresen as a development manager for his own website.

During the course of the meeting, Plaintiff claims that Defendant

MOG offered him employment, which he accepted. Plaintiff

allegedly began working for Defendant MOG on June 27, 2005 from

his residence in California.4

Plaintiff asserts that after he returned to California, he

continued to work with Defendants from his residence in

finalizing the joint business venture. 

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01738-MCE -GGH Document 22 Filed 12/14/06 Page 3 of 9
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

 While the Defendants moved to transfer the present matter 5

under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the Court interprets

this motion as a motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). 

It has long been recognized “that Sec. 1404(a) 'was drafted in

accordance with the doctrine of forum non conveniens.” FosterMilburn Co. v. Knight, 181 F.2d 949, 952 (2nd Cir. 1950); see

also Rogers v. Halford, 107 F. Supp. 295, 297 (D. Wis. 1952)

(finding that the intent of “Congress in enacting Section 1404(a)

was to adopt legislatively the doctrine of forum non

conveniens”(citing Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilber, 330 U.S. 501, 507

(1947)).

4

According to Plaintiff, on March 17, 2006 he discovered not only

that his employees had resigned and started working for Defendant

MOG, but that he was also locked out of his website. On March

30, 2006, Plaintiff received his last pay check from Defendant

MOG. Plaintiff claims he was denied severance pay, as provided

for in his employment contract.

STANDARD

1. Motion to Transfer Pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)5

 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (“Section 1404(a)") provides in

pertinent part as follows: "[f]or 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." Under Section 1404(a), a district

court has discretion "to adjudicate motions for transfer

according to an 'individualized, case-by-case consideration of

convenience and fairness.'" Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211

F.3d 495, 498-499 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Stewart Org. Ricoh

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

///

Case 2:06-cv-01738-MCE -GGH Document 22 Filed 12/14/06 Page 4 of 9
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

The moving party must make “a strong showing of inconvenience to

warrant upsetting the plaintiff’s choice of forum.” Hope v. Otis

Elevator Co., 389 F.Supp.2d 1235, 1242 (E.D. Cal. 2005) (quoting

Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 743

(9th Cir. 1986)).

In determining whether a transfer is appropriate in a

particular case, a court must consider multiple public and

private factors: (1) convenience of the parties; (2) convenience

of the witnesses; (3) ease of access to the evidence; (4)

familiarity of each forum with the applicable law; (5) local

interest in the controversy; and (6) the relative court

congestion and time of trial in each forum. Id. As a threshold

matter, it is undisputed that the Northern District of Ohio is a

proper venue for this action. The question hence becomes whether

this matter should be transferred to Ohio upon application of the

factors relevant to determining the efficacy of such a transfer. 

Those factors, as enumerated above, will now be addressed. 

ANALYSIS

1. Convenience of the Parties

This factor should favor the non-moving party if it merely

shifts inconveniences from the defendants to the plaintiffs.

DeFazio v. Hollister Employee Share Ownership Trust, 406 F.Supp.

2d 1085, 1090 (E.D. Cal 2005).

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01738-MCE -GGH Document 22 Filed 12/14/06 Page 5 of 9
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

It is undisputed that the Northern District of Ohio is a

more convenient forum for Defendants because Defendants’

operations, employees and records are situated almost exclusively

in Ohio. This District on the other hand is more convenient and

cost effective for Plaintiff because he resides here and has

retained California counsel. A transfer would merely shift the

burden of an inconvenient forum from the Defendants to the

Plaintiff. The Court finds, based on the presumption supporting

the non-moving party, that this factor weighs against

transferring this action.

2. Convenience of the Witnesses

The convenience of the witnesses is said to be the most

important factor in considering a transfer motion. L.A. Mem’l

Coliseum Comm’n v. Nat’l Football League, 89 F.R.D. 497, 501

(C.D. Cal. 1981).

All of Defendants’ witnesses are located in Ohio or

Massachusetts. Specifically, the law firm hired to create the

business entity between Plaintiff and Defendants, the source of

this dispute, is located in Ohio, as are most of Defendant MOG’s

employees. Although Plaintiff lives in California, he failed to

identify any witness that resides in this forum. Accordingly,

the Court finds that this factor substantially supports

transferring this action to Ohio. 

///

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01738-MCE -GGH Document 22 Filed 12/14/06 Page 6 of 9
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

3. Ease of Access to the Evidence

When “the location of the evidence is supported by other

factors in favor of transfer, the relative ease of access to

proof is an important factor to be considered in deciding whether

to grant a motion to transfer under section 1404.” Jarvis v.

Marietta Corp., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12659 (N.D. Cal. 1999)

(citing Decker Coal, 805 F.2d at 843).

All of Defendants’ witnesses, as well as most of the

evidence in this case, is located in Ohio. The anticipated

business venture, between Plaintiff and Defendants, was

negotiated in Ohio, and the evidence concerning those

negotiations, including the June 2005 meeting conducted in Ohio,

unquestionably derives from witnesses and/or documents within

Ohio. Plaintiff claims evidence of his damages is located in

California, but identifies no evidence going to the merits of the

claims located in this State. The Court finds that the location

and access to the majority of the evidence weighs strongly in

favor of the Defendants’ Motion to Transfer. 

4. Governing Law

While it is not definite at this stage of litigation, there

is a strong indication that Ohio law will control at least a

significant portion of the claims in this lawsuit. The

developing business venture between Plaintiff and Defendants was

organized under Ohio law, Defendant MOG operates under Ohio law,

and the employment relationship between Defendant MOG and

Plaintiff commenced in Ohio. 

///

Case 2:06-cv-01738-MCE -GGH Document 22 Filed 12/14/06 Page 7 of 9
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

8

Besides the harm Plaintiff allegedly suffered and the work he

performed in California under his employment contract with

Defendant MOG, all other aspects of this lawsuit are Ohio based,

providing a substantial and persuasive argument for Ohio law to

apply.

Clearly, an Ohio court would be more familiar with the

contours and applicability of Ohio law, than one sitting in

California. Consequently, the Court finds this factor tips in

favor of Defendants. 

5. Local Interest in the Controversy

The Court acknowledges that California maintains an interest

in protecting Plaintiff, as one of its residents, from suffering

emotional and economic harm. However, given that most of the

documentary evidence, witnesses, and actions at issue in this

case are in, or occurred in, Ohio, the Court finds that Ohio has

a greater local interest in the controversy at issue than does

California. 

6. Relative Court Congestion in Each Forum

Neither party specifically addressed this factor in their

papers. Because the Eastern District of California is one of the

most congested district courts in the country, however, this

factor would appear to support transferring this action to Ohio.

///

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01738-MCE -GGH Document 22 Filed 12/14/06 Page 8 of 9
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

CONCLUSION

While the Plaintiff’s choice of forum is given substantial

weight when determining to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1404(a), the Court finds that Defendants have satisfied their

burden showing that the convenience of the parties and witnesses

and the interest of justice warrants transfer. Accordingly,

Defendants’ Motion to Transfer this action to the Eastern

Division of the United States District Court for the Northern

District of Ohio is GRANTED. Consequently, Defendants Motion to

Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction is DISMISSED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 13, 2006

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01738-MCE -GGH Document 22 Filed 12/14/06 Page 9 of 9