Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02116/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02116-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Automated Legal Systems, Inc.
Plaintiff
Professional Document Services, Inc.
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AUTOMATED LEGAL SYSTEMS,

INC., a Texas corporation,

NO. CIV. S-06-2116 LKK/DAD

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

PROFESSIONAL DOCUMENT

SERVICES, INC., a California

corporation,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff Automated Legal Services has brought an action

against defendant Professional Document Services alleging trademark

infringement and unfair competition. Pending before the court is

defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue under

28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) or, in the alternative, motion to transfer

under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The court decides the matter on the

parties’ papers and after oral argument. For the reasons set forth

below, the court denies the motion to dismiss for improper venue

but grants the motion to transfer.

Case 2:06-cv-02116-LKK -DAD Document 24 Filed 01/18/07 Page 1 of 6
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

2

I. Background

Plaintiff filed its complaint on September 22, 2006 in this

district, advancing causes of action for trademark infringement and

unfair competition. Plaintiff alleges defendant has unlawfully

used the mark “ProDoc,” despite having notice of plaintiff’s

ownership of the PRODOC® mark.

Plaintiff provides evidence that defendant conducted business

activities within this district, or at least advertised that it did

so. First, as of June 2006, defendant’s website stated that “In

Northern California, we service Santa Clara, San Francisco, Alameda

and Sacramento counties.” Decl. of Debra Trevin (“Trevin Decl.”)

¶ 9, Ex. B. Second, as of June 2006, defendant’s website disclosed

two offices in Sacramento. Id., Ex. A. It appears that at some

point between June 2006 and the filing of defendant’s reply brief,

these websites were subsequently modified to remove references to

Sacramento.

Defendant has tendered evidence it “does not maintain a place

of business or conduct business operations within the Eastern

District of California.” Decl. of Kyle Lum (“Lum Decl.”) ¶ 5.

Furthermore, defendant submits that its main headquarters, as well

as the majority of its documents, files, records, and employees,

are located in Simi Valley, California (i.e., in the Central

District of California).

II. Standard

Venue is proper in any district “in which a substantial part

of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28

Case 2:06-cv-02116-LKK -DAD Document 24 Filed 01/18/07 Page 2 of 6
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

3

U.S.C. § 1391(a). Section 1391 does not require that a majority

of the events have occurred in the district where suit is filed,

nor does it require that the events in that district predominate.

Rodriguez v. California Highway Patrol, 89 F. Supp. 2d 1131, 1136

(N.D. Cal. 2000). All that plaintiff needs to show is that a

substantial part of the events giving rise to his claim occurred

in the Eastern District of California. See id. If venue is

improper in this district, then the court may transfer the case to

any district or division in which it could have been brought if it

is in the interests of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 

Similarly, for the convenience of parties and witnesses, a

district court may transfer any civil action to any other district

or division where it might have been brought if it is in the

interests of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). However, defendant

must make a strong showing of inconvenience to warrant upsetting

plaintiff's choice of forum. Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth

Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). The relevant

factors in this inquiry include plaintiff’s choice of forum,

convenience to the parties, convenience to the witnesses, ease of

access to evidence, familiarity of the forum with applicable law,

feasibility of consolidation with other claims, local interests in

the controversy, and court congestion. Williams v. Bowman, 157 F.

Supp. 2d 1103, 1106 (N.D. Cal. 2001).

III. Analysis

Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss or transfer for

improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) or, in the alternative,

Case 2:06-cv-02116-LKK -DAD Document 24 Filed 01/18/07 Page 3 of 6
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

4

a motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(b)(3). Plaintiff argues that venue is proper given

defendant’s contacts in this district and that defendant has not

met its burden of proving that transfer is appropriate. For the

reasons set forth below, the motion to dismiss or transfer for

improper venue is denied but the motion to transfer is granted.

First, venue is proper in this district because a

substantial part of the events giving rise to plaintiff’s claims

occurred in the Eastern District of California. 28 U.S.C.

1391(b)(2). According to defendant’s own website, it had two

offices in Sacramento as recently as June 2006. Even if

defendant has accurately represented that the website is

outdated, it readily concedes that it conducted business within

the Eastern District as recently as 2004. Reply to Pl.’s Opp’n

to Mot. to Dismiss at 1. Because the PRODOC® mark was

registered in 1996, Compl., Ex. A, it appears that a substantial

part of the events giving rise to plaintiff’s claims arose in

this district. Accordingly, venue here is proper, and the

motion to dismiss or transfer under 28 U.S.C. 1406(a) is denied.

Second, defendant requests that this case be transferred

under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the Central District of California. 

A district court may transfer any civil action to any other

district where it might have been brought “[f]or the convenience

of the parties and witnesses, in the interests of justice.” 28

U.S.C. § 1404(a). Ordinarily, plaintiff’s choice of forum is

entitled to considerable weight in this determination, but “the

Case 2:06-cv-02116-LKK -DAD Document 24 Filed 01/18/07 Page 4 of 6
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

5

degree to which courts defer to plaintiff’s chosen venue is

substantially reduced when the plaintiff’s choice is not its

residence.” Inherent.com v. Martindale-Hubbell, 420 F. Supp. 2d

1093, 1099 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (internal quotes and citations

omitted). Here, plaintiff is a Texas corporation with its

principal place of business in Texas. Accordingly, plaintiff’s

choice of forum is not entitled to its ordinary weight. Pacific

Car & Foundry Co. v. Pence, 403 F.2d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 1968)

(“Plaintiff’s choice of forum, then, is not the final word.”).

Moreover, section 1404(a) directs the court to consider the

convenience of the parties and witnesses. Defendant has

identified two witnesses, Terri Lum and Kyle Lum, who are

residents of Southern California and who would be inconvenienced

if forced to travel to Sacramento. See Decl. of Kyle Lum, ¶¶ 8-

10; Decl. of Terry Lum ¶¶ 3-5. As for the convenience of the

parties, there is no doubt that it would be more convenient for

defendant if this action were litigated in the Central District,

given that its main headquarters, files, and records are located

in Simi Valley, California. Plaintiff has not identified any

reason why it would be more convenient for it to prosecute this

action in the Eastern District versus the Central District.

Many of the factors typically employed in analyzing the

“interests of justice” consideration are inapplicable here,

because the requested transfer is to another district within

California. For example, the issue of forum familiarity with

applicable law, and whether the forum has an interest in the

Case 2:06-cv-02116-LKK -DAD Document 24 Filed 01/18/07 Page 5 of 6
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

6

controversy, favors neither granting nor denying the requested

transfer. Williams, 157 F. Supp. 2d at 1106.

Ultimately, the only considerations to be weighed are, on

the one hand, the inconveniences identified by defendant and, on

the other hand, plaintiff’s stated preference for this district

over a sister district. Because this preference is weakened by

the fact that plaintiff is an out-of-state resident, the court

finds that defendants have demonstrated a sufficiently strong

showing of inconvenience to warrant transfer.

IV. Conclusion

Accordingly, the court orders that the motion to dismiss or

transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) is DENIED and the motion to

transfer venue to the Central District of California under 28

U.S.C. § 1404(a) is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 18, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02116-LKK -DAD Document 24 Filed 01/18/07 Page 6 of 6