Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02760/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02760-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Belkin Corporation
Defendant
Jacob Greenwell
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JACOB GREENWELL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BELKIN CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-02760 WHA

ORDER TRANSFERRING

ACTION TO THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF

CALIFORNIA AND 

VACATING HEARING

INTRODUCTION

In this putative class-action alleging false advertising, defendant Belkin Corporation

moves to transfer this action to the Central District of California for consolidation with an

identical action currently pending in that district. Plaintiff has filed no opposition to the motion. 

For the following reasons, defendant’s motion is GRANTED.

STATEMENT

Defendant Belkin Corporation manufactures and sells wireless network and

communication networking products, including wireless routers, modems, and adaptors. 

Plaintiff’s complaint alleged that Belkin advertised that its wireless products would deliver data

transmission rates of “11Mbps” and “54Mbps,” but that those representations were false. 

Plaintiff’s complaint alleged breach of express warranty, violation of California’s Consumer

Legal Remedies Act, unfair competition, and violation of California’s Business and Professions

Code Section 17200 et seq. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 5, 15, 22). 

Case 3:06-cv-02760-WHA Document 21 Filed 10/10/06 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff filed the instant action on March 13, 2006 in Alameda County Superior Court. 

On April 24, 2006, Belkin removed this action to federal court under the Class Action Fairness

Act of 2005 and on diversity jurisdiction. For purposes of this motion it is important to note

that two virtually identical putative class-action suits were filed against Belkin in 2006. The

first, Shannahoff v. Belkin Corp., C 06-1474-GPS, was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on

January 12, 2006 and removed to the Central District of California on March 9, 2006. The

other action, Odanga v. Belkin Corp., C 06-5144 GPS, was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court

on May 19, 2006, and was removed to the Central District of California on August 16, 2006

(Pettis Exhs. A & B). 

It is obvious that plaintiff here copied the Shannahoff complaint practically word-forword — Shannahoff’s name appears in plaintiff’s complaint (Compl. ¶ 13). Both the

Shannahoff and Odanga complaints allege violations of the same California code sections for

the same misconduct as plaintiff’s complaint does here. Most important, the putative class is

identical in all three suits, and is described as: “All persons residing in the United States who

purchased, or will purchase one or more Belkin wireless products (router, modem or adapter) in

the United States, on or after the date Defendant placed the products into the stream of

commerce” (Compl ¶ 55).

Finally, defendant represents in its reply brief that Belkin and plaintiff’s counsel in the

Shannahoff action “have agreed to all of the terms of a settlement of the putative class’ claims”

(Reply Br. 2). The parties in Shannahoff are reportedly finalizing settlement documents to

present to the court for approval. 

ANALYSIS

Defendant Belkin now moves to transfer this action to the Central District on the

grounds that there is an identical, earlier-filed action pending in that district, and that transfer

will facilitate coordination with Shannahoff and Odanga actions. Under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a),

“[f]or 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.”

Case 3:06-cv-02760-WHA Document 21 Filed 10/10/06 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

As a threshold matter, the party seeking transfer has the burden to establish that the

transferee court would have had subject-matter jurisdiction, defendants would have been subject

to personal jurisdiction, and venue would have been proper. Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335,

343-44 (1960). This order finds that this action could have been brought initially in the Central

District. Subject-matter jurisdiction would still be appropriate under CAFA in the Central

District. Belkin is subject to personal jurisdiction in the Central district to the same extent it is

subject to personal jurisdiction in this district. Finally, venue would have been appropriate in

the Central District because Belkin is a resident of California. Under 28 U.S.C. 1391(c), “a

corporation shall be deemed to reside in any judicial district in which it is subject to personal

jurisdiction.”

The Ninth Circuit has instructed that a court must look to a number of “public” and

“private” factors to determine whether transfer will serve the interests of justice. 

Private factors include the “relative ease of access to sources of

proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance of

unwilling; possibility of view of premises; if view would be

appropriate to the action; and all other practical problems that

make the trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” 

Public factors include “the administrative difficulties flowing

from court congestion; the local ‘interest in having the trial of a

diversity case in a forum that is at home with the law that must

govern the action; the avoidance of unnecessary problems in

conflict of laws, or in the application of foreign law and the

unfairness of burdening citizens in an unrelated forum with jury

duty.”

Gherebi v. Bush, 352 F.3d 1278, 1302-03 (9th Cir. 2003), rev’d on other grounds, 542 U.S. 952

(2004) (internal citations omitted).. 

Here, the private factors weigh strongly in favor of transfer to the Central District. First,

the access to discovery materials and witnesses will be facilitated by transfer. As defendants

state, “[w]itnesses and proof regarding Belkin’s sales volume, customers and packaging will

necessarily come from Belkin’s records and corporate representatives, which are all in

Compton, Los Angeles County, California” (Br. 8). Second, transfer will facilitate

consolidation of this action with the earlier-filed Shannahoff action.. These two actions will

require analysis of the same legal issues. “[T]he pendency of an action in another district is

important because of the positive effects it might have in possible consolidation of discovery

Case 3:06-cv-02760-WHA Document 21 Filed 10/10/06 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

and convenience to witnesses and parties.” A. J. Indus., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Central

Dist. of Cal., 503 F.2d 384, 389 (9th Cir. 1974) (internal citation omitted). Third, by failing to

oppose the transfer, plaintiff has not articulated any prejudice that he will suffer by proceeding

in the Central District rather than in this district.

The public factors also favor transfer. It would be inefficient for this district to expend

resources adjudicating a dispute virtually identical to one already pending in our sister district. 

“Consolidation prevents waste and duplication of judicial time and effort, and avoids the risk of

inconsistent litigation in complicated cases.” Williams v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 1998 U.S. Dist.

Lexis 1859, *2 (N.D. Cal. 1998). Moreover, if, as defendants represent, Shannahoff is on the

verge of settling, that settlement would moot the instant suit. It would certainly be “in the

interest of justice” for the putative class members in this case, who are identical to the

Shannahoff class members, to pursue their interests in the same forum as Shannahoff. All

factors clearly favor transfer to the Central District.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion to transfer is GRANTED. The Clerk shall

immediately transfer the file to the United States District Court for the Central District of

California. Finding no further argument necessary, the hearing on this motion is hereby

VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 10, 2006 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-02760-WHA Document 21 Filed 10/10/06 Page 4 of 4