Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00452/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00452-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
$1,820.50 in Money Orders
Defendant
Approximately $12,639.97 in Money Orders
Defendant
Approximately $14,271.00 in U.S. Currency
Defendant
Approximately $15,630.00 in U.S. Currency
Defendant
Approximately $60,517.00 in U.S. Currency
Defendant
Approximately $8,000.00 in U.S. Currency
Defendant
Approximately $90,000.00 in U.S. Currency
Defendant
LA International, Inc.
Claimant
LMS International, Inc.
Claimant
Miscellaneous Smokeless Tobacco Products
Defendant
United States of America
Plaintiff
Jawid Wahidi
Claimant
Sadiq Wahidi
Claimant

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 Defendants in this case are the currency and

miscellaneous smokeless tobacco products seized by the government

at claimants’ residences. (Compl., filed Mar. 7, 2007, ¶ 4.) By

this action, the government seeks forfeiture of the currency on

the ground it is the proceeds of, or traceable to, mail fraud; it

seeks forfeiture of the tobacco products as contraband not

legally possessed by anyone. (Opp’n, filed May 24, 2007, at 1.) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

NO. CIV. 07-0452 FCD KJM

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

APPROXIMATELY $15,630.00 IN

U.S. CURRENCY, APPROXIMATELY

$8,000.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY, 

APPROXIMATELY $12,639.97 IN

MONEY ORDERS, APPROXIMATELY

$60,517.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY,

APPROXIMATELY $14,271.00 IN

U.S. CURRENCY, APPROXIMATELY

$90,000.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY,

APPROXIMATELY $1,820.50 IN

MONEY ORDERS, AND 

MISCELLANEOUS SMOKELESS

TOBACCO PRODUCTS,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on claimants1

 Jawid Wahidi

(“Jawid”), LMS International, Inc. (“LMS”), Sadiq Wahidi

Case 2:07-cv-00452-FCD-KJM Document 36 Filed 06/25/07 Page 1 of 10
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 Claimants originally contested venue in the Eastern

District but then conceded venue is proper in their reply to

plaintiff’s opposition. (Reply, filed June 4, 2007, at 3.) 

3 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance,

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

L.R. 78-230(h).

2

(“Sadiq”), and LA International, Inc.’s (“LA Int’l”) motion to

transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Claimants do not

challenge the propriety of venue in the Eastern District of

California, but argue that the Central District of California is

the more appropriate forum.2 Plaintiff United States of America

(the “government”) opposes the motion.

For the reasons set forth below, claimants’ motion is

DENIED.3 

BACKGROUND

Claimant Jawid owns LMS, a wholesale store located at 101

East 3rd Street in Los Angeles, California. (Notice of Mot. and

Mot. to Dismiss, filed Apr. 29, 2007 [“Mot’n”], at 3.) Claimant

Sadiq was the president of LA Int’l, a wholesale store located at

340 East 3rd Street in Los Angeles, California. (Mot’n at 3-4)

The complaint alleges that claimants are involved in an

extensive illegal network of trafficking “other tobacco products”

(“OTP”), i.e. chewing tobacco, from Arizona to California. 

(Frederick Aff., filed Mar. 3, 2007, at ¶ 6.) Akrum Alrahib

(“Alrahib”) owns Sunrise Tobacco, Save a Buck Distribution, and

Da Bomb Products, which are all located at 7600 North 71st Avenue

in Glendale, Arizona. (Id. at ¶ 9.) Alrahib orders large

quantities of OTP from manufacturers and national suppliers that

he then distributes throughout California. (Id. at ¶ 23.) Ali

Case 2:07-cv-00452-FCD-KJM Document 36 Filed 06/25/07 Page 2 of 10
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 See supra note 1. 

3

Tavaf Langroudi (“Tavaf”)--the owner of Smart Buy Wholesale

located at 213 East 3rd Street in Los Angeles, California--

receives much of Alrahib’s OTP. (Id. at ¶ 25.) Tavaf then

distributes the OTP to numerous companies including claimants LMS

and LA Int’l. (Id.) The government alleges this entire

distribution process circumvents California’s and Arizona’s

excise tax on OTP, resulting in a nearly fifty percent profit for

the participants, and conversely, a substantial loss to the

government. 

California law requires sellers and purchasers of OTP to

submit monthly tax returns to the California Board of

Equalization (“BOE”) and pay excise taxes on the sales. The

government contends that claimants significantly under-reported

its OTP purchases and thus underpaid the corresponding excise

taxes due. (Frederick decl., filed May 24, 2007, at ¶ 3.) From

January 2004 through October 2006, claimants LA Int’l and LMS

filed fifty tobacco returns to the BOE in Sacramento. (Opp’n at

3-4.) 

Defendants in this case are property seized at LMS, LA

Int’l, Jawid’s residence, and Sadiq’s residence during a

comprehensive federal investigatory raid on October 17, 2006.4

United States Magistrate Judge Jennifer T. Lum of the Central

District of California signed the search warrant authorizing the

search of claimants’ premises and the seizure of the subject

property. (Mot’n at 7.) All of the defendant property was

seized in the Central District. (Id. at 3.) In addition to the

Case 2:07-cv-00452-FCD-KJM Document 36 Filed 06/25/07 Page 3 of 10
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

defendant property, other property was seized including numerous

financial and business records of claimants. (Opp’n at 4-5.)

These records were later transferred to the Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) for the Eastern

District of California for analysis for use in this action as

well as for possible use in a related criminal mail fraud

investigation. (Frederick decl. at ¶¶ 5-10.)

Claimants contend venue should be transferred to the Central

District because the search and seizure occurred in the Central

District and claimants reside there. Claimants assert they will

be substantially burdened by litigating this case in the Eastern

District and that any burden to the government is outweighed by

the harm to them. 

The government asserts to the contrary that venue should

remain in the Eastern District because its choice of forum must

be given substantial weight; claimants mailed their tax returns

to the BOE in Sacramento; the numerous documents seized at LMS,

LA Int’l, Jawid’s residence, and Sadiq’s residence are being held

by the ATF in Sacramento; the government’s witnesses are based in

the Eastern District and would be severely burdened by a transfer

to the Central District.

STANDARD

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court may “for the

convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice 

. . . transfer any civil action to any other district where it

might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). A court has

broad discretion in deciding whether or not to transfer venue

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). E. & J. Gallo Winery v. F. & P.

Case 2:07-cv-00452-FCD-KJM Document 36 Filed 06/25/07 Page 4 of 10
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

S.p.A., 899 F. Supp. 465, 466 (E.D. Cal. 1994). A defendant

moving to transfer venue under Section 1404(a) must satisfy both

of the following requirements: (1) the transferee district is one

in which the action might have been brought originally; and (2)

transfer will enhance the convenience of the parties and

witnesses, and is in the interests of justice. See Van Dusen v.

Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964). In considering the second

requirement, the court evaluates the following:

(1) the plaintiff’s choice of forum, (2) the

convenience of the parties, (3) the convenience 

of the witnesses, and (4) the interest of 

justice. 

L.A. Memorial Coliseum Comm’n v. Nat’l Football League, 89 F.R.D.

497, 499 (C.D. Cal. 1981). 

ANALYSIS

Venue is proper in the Central Disctrit of California

because a substantial part of the events took place there. 28

U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Thus, the only question before the court is

whether transfer to the Central District will enhance the

“convenience of parties and witnesses” and will promote “the

interests of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). 

The moving party has the burden of establishing that an

action should be transferred. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n

v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979). Unless the balance

is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice of

forum should rarely be disturbed. Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330

U.S. 501, 508 (1947). 

Here, claimants have not satisfied their burden. The

government did not arbitrarily choose to litigate this case in

Case 2:07-cv-00452-FCD-KJM Document 36 Filed 06/25/07 Page 5 of 10
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 In addition, the government represents that an indictment

in the ongoing criminal investigation involving claimants and the

(continued...)

6

the Eastern District of California. All of the law enforcement

officers working on this case are based in Sacramento. (Opp’n at

9-10.) The seized records are located and being analyzed in

Sacramento. (Id. at 10.) Also, the government’s attorneys, who

are based in the Eastern District, represent that they would

continue to litigate this case even if it was transferred to the

Central District because they have been involved in the case from

the outset of the investigation and are litigating other related

cases. (Id. at 11.) Under these circumstances, the court finds

that transferring this action to the Central District of

California would cause a significant burden to the government.

Moreover, while it is true that all of the property was

seized in the Central District and brought here by the government

for its own reasons, it is not true, as claimants contend, that

claimants have no connection to the Eastern District. (Mot’n at

3.) Claimants allegedly filed fifty fraudulent tax returns to

the BOE office in Sacramento. (Opp’n at 10.) 

Additionally, eleven other cases which have been spawned by

this federal investigation involving the OTP trafficking scheme

are pending in the Eastern District. These cases, while not

consolidated, have been ruled related and are pending before the

undersigned. (Related Case Order, filed May 3, 2007.) The

government asserts that the documents presently held in

Sacramento for this case may be necessary for the related

matters.5 (Frederick decl. at ¶ 7, 10.) These circumstances

Case 2:07-cv-00452-FCD-KJM Document 36 Filed 06/25/07 Page 6 of 10
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(...continued)

related cases is likely and would be litigated in the Eastern

District. (Frederick decl. at ¶¶ 7, 10.)

7

further persuade the court that venue should not be transferred. 

 

Despite these facts, claimants contend that the convenience

of the parties warrants transfer to the Central District. The

court acknowledges that Jawid works in Los Angeles and perhaps

may be unable to operate his store during trial in the Eastern

District; however, the court finds no authority supporting

transfer on this basis alone. Indeed, the cases claimants cite

in support of transfer based on Jawid’s business disruption are

distinguishable. Those cases dealt with transfer between distant

states. See United States v. Russell, 582 F. Supp. 660 (S.D.N.Y.

1984) (transfer from New York to Tennessee); United States v.

Olen, 183 F. Supp. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 1960) (transfer from New York to

Alabama); United States v. Cashen, 281 F.2d 669 (2d Cir. 1960)

(transfer from New York to Alabama). Trial in Sacramento, as

opposed to Los Angeles, should not present Jawid with similar

difficulties. As to Sadiq, his burden is minimal. He is retired

from work and his wife’s generalized “poor health” is not

sufficient to warrant transfer. (Mot’n at 9.) 

As to the convenience of the witnesses, this factor is often

regarded as the most important in determining whether transfer of

venue is proper. United States v. One Oil Painting, 362 F. Supp.

2d 1175, 1185 (C.D. Cal. 2005). A clear balance of

inconvenience, however, must be shown; a court will not transfer

venue to shift the inconvenience of one party and witnesses to

Case 2:07-cv-00452-FCD-KJM Document 36 Filed 06/25/07 Page 7 of 10
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

the other. See Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 645-46

(1964); Schwarzer, et al., Cal. Practice Guide, 4:786 at 91

(2006). 

Claimants argue that their witnesses will be burdened if the

trial is held in the Eastern District. The government contends

that claimants’ witnesses will be largely irrelevant because it

will base its case primarily on the business records held in

Sacramento. (Opp’n at 9.) Additionally, the government asserts

that some of claimants’ proposed witnesses would likely not

testify as they too are subjects of the same criminal

investigation. (Id.) On the other hand, the government’s

witnesses are Sacramento-based government employees. These

witnesses also would be burdened by litigation in a forum where

they do not live and work. Thus, it appears that both sides’

witnesses may be burdened by litigation in a forum in which they

do not reside and work. When the inconvenience of the

alternative venues is comparable “the tie is awarded to the

plaintiff” and there is no basis for a change of venue. In Re

National Presto Indus., Inc., 347 F.3d 662, 665 (7th Cir. 2003). 

However, claimants nevertheless contend that inconvenience

to government witnesses is not significant, but they cite no

authority for their argument. (Mot’n at 15.) In fact, there is

authority supporting the contrary position. Courts have held

that a government agency’s choice of forum is entitled to the

same deference as a private party. Id. at 665 (“When government

lawyers and investigators incur time and travel costs to litigate

in a remote forum, the burden falls on the taxpayer, who finances

the federal government and who is not less worthy of the

Case 2:07-cv-00452-FCD-KJM Document 36 Filed 06/25/07 Page 8 of 10
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

protections of the law than corporate officers, shareholders, and

employees.”); see Schwarzer, et al., Cal. Practice Guide, 4:760

at 88 (2003). In National Presto, the Securities and Exchange

Commission (“SEC”) sued National Presto Industries (“Presto”) in

the Northern District of Illinois. National Presto, 347 F.3d at

663. Presto moved to transfer the case to the Western District

of Wisconsin, arguing that multiple factors supported a transfer

of venue. Id. at 664. These factors included that its potential

witnesses resided in the Western District, the original documents

in the case were located in the Western District, and the Northen

District of Illinois had a heavier docket than the Western

District. Id. The court refused to transfer venue to the

Western District despite acknowledging that the only factors in

favor of venue remaining in Illinois were the convenience to the

SEC and the SEC’s choice of forum. Id. 

Claimants attempt to distinguish National Presto,

emphasizing that there, the SEC did not have an office in the

transferee district. Here, claimants stress that the government

could litigate this case from its offices in the Central

District. While this fact is true, it does not compel the court

to transfer venue. As recognized by the court in SEC v. Savory

Indus., Inc., 587 F.2d 1149, 1155 (D.C. Cir. 1978), an office in

the transferee district is more relevant to the question of

whether the choice of that district is convenient to the

plaintiff, as opposed to the weight given to a plaintiff’s choice

of forum. In Savory, the SEC sued Savory Industries, Inc., S.

Mort Zimmerman, and others in the District of Columbia. Savory,

587 F.2d at 1152. Zimmerman moved to transfer venue to the

Case 2:07-cv-00452-FCD-KJM Document 36 Filed 06/25/07 Page 9 of 10
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

Northern District of Texas. Id. at 1153. The district court

denied the motion without comment. Id. On appeal, one of

Zimmerman’s arguments was that the SEC’s choice of forum should

be accorded little, if any, significance because the SEC had an

office in the Northern District of Texas. Id. at 1155. The

appellate court disagreed. It ruled that an office in the

transferee district was not a compelling factor. Id. at 1156. 

The court finds similarly here, particularly given the extensive

nature of this federal investigation, which has been performed by

law enforcement officers in this district and which has

generated, to date, twelve related cases pending in this

district. 

CONCLUSION

Claimants have not met their burden to show that the

convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of

justice warrant transfer of this case. Therefore, claimants’

motion for transfer of venue is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 25, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00452-FCD-KJM Document 36 Filed 06/25/07 Page 10 of 10