Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01847/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01847-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Salvador L. Dorado
Plaintiff
Laborers Pension Trust Fund for Northern California
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

Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rule 78-230(c), plaintiff Salvador L. Dorado (“Mr. Dorado”) is not entitled 1

to oral argument because he failed to file timely opposition papers.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SALVADOR L. DORADO, CASE NO. CV F 06-0394 AWI LJO

Plaintiff, ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

TRANSFER VENUE

vs. (Doc. 7.)

LABORERS PENSION TRUST FUND

FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

 /

INTRODUCTION

In this action seeking pension benefits, defendant Laborers Pension Trust Fund for Northern

California (“Laborers Pension”) seeks to transfer this action to this Court’s Sacramento division on

grounds that relevant documents and witnesses are located in Fairfield, California, which is less than an

hour from Sacramento. This Court considered Laborers Pension’s motion for change of venue on the

record and without oral argument or the August 25, 2006 hearing, pursuant to this Court’s Local Rule

78-230(c) and (h). For the reasons discussed below, this Court GRANTS Laborers Pension’s motion 1

to transfer this action to this Court’s Sacramento divsion. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Dorado is a Visalia resident and was a laborer and member of Laborers Union Local 1060.

Case 2:06-cv-01847-GEB-EFB Document 14 Filed 08/18/06 Page 1 of 4
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

Mr. Dorado participates in the Laborers Pension, which denied Mr. Dorado’s claims for pension

benefits. Mr. Dorado brought this action under the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act of

1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001, et seq., to claim that Laborers Pension has wrongfully refused to

pay pension benefits or to reimburse Mr. Dorado money entrusted to Laborers Pension. In his complaint,

Mr. Dorado notes his Tulare County residence and that acts subject to his claims were performed within

this Court’s jurisdiction. Mr. Dorado seeks payment of pension benefits and related declaratory relief.

Laborers Pension filed a skeletal motion to transfer this action to the Sacramento division on

grounds that:

1. Laborers Pension is headquartered in Fairfield, which is less than an hour from

Sacramento;

2. All relevant documents and witnesses are located in Fairfield so that no purpose is served

to require Laborers Pension to produce documents and witnesses in Fresno; and

3. Laborers Pension would incur extra, unnecessary expense to litigate in Fresno.

DISCUSSION

Once federal jurisdiction is established, venue rules ensure the matter will be tried in the proper

federal district. A civil action which is based upon federal question, as here, must be brought: (1) in a

judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state; (2) a judicial

district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the action occurred; or (3)

a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may

be brought otherwise. See 28 U.S.C. §1391(b).

This Court’s Local Rule 3-120(d) provides that all civil actions arising in Tulare County must

be commenced in this Court’s Fresno division. This Court’s Local Rule 3-120(f) authorizes a transfer

of an action when “the Court finds upon its own motion, motion of any party, or stipulation that an

action has not been commenced in the proper court in accordance with this Rule, or for other good cause,

the Court may transfer the same to another venue within the District.” 

 Change of venue is authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) which 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.

Case 2:06-cv-01847-GEB-EFB Document 14 Filed 08/18/06 Page 2 of 4
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

The purpose of 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) “is to prevent 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, 84 S.Ct. 805 (1964).

Transfer of venue factors include convenience of witnesses and parties, judicial economy,

relative ease of access to proof, availability of compulsory process, and possibility of view of premises.

Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 241, n. 6, 102 S.Ct. 252, 258, n. 6 (1981); E & J Gallo

Winery v. F. & P. S. p. A., 899 F.Supp. 465, 466 (E.D. Cal. 1994). The convenience and interest of

justice factors are addressed to a court’s inherent discretion and interpreted broadly to allow a court to

consider the particulars of each case. Lopez Perez v. Hufstedler, 505 F.Supp. 39, 41 (D. D.C. 1980); E.

& J. Gallo Winery, 988 F.Supp. at 466. Transfer rulings under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) generally turn on

practical considerations, including judicial economy (whether transfer will avoid duplicative litigation,

effect judicial economy and prevent waste of time and money). Van Dusen, 376 U.S. at 616.

A plaintiff’s choice of forum is accorded substantial weight in proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §

1404(a). Courts generally will not order a transfer unless the “convenience” and “interest of justice”

considerations strongly favor venue elsewhere. Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Vigman, 764

F.2d 1309, 1317 (9 Cir. 1985). The party seeking a transfer has the burden to show that convenience th

of parties and witnesses and interest of justice require transfer to another district. Commodity Futures

Trading Comm’n v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 279 (9 Cir. 1979); Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Comm’n

th

v. NFL, 89 F.R.D. 497, 499 (C.D. Cal. 1981). The party seeking transfer has the burden to show that

trial in the district where the action is pending will result in a clear balance of inconveniences to him/her.

Harris Trust & Sav. Bank v. SLT Warehouse, 605 F. Supp. 225, 227 (N.D. Il. 1985).

The gist of Laborers Pension’s motion is that its documents and witnesses are closer to this

Court’s Sacramento division so that a transfer to the Sacramento division will promote Laborer

Pension’s convenience and decrease its expenses. Mr. Dorado filed no timely opposition papers to

suggest that he concedes the convenience issue. Although Laborers Pension offers little to substantiate

change of venue, Mr. Dorado’s lack of opposition demonstrates a disinterest to preserve venue in this

Court’s Fresno division and in turn Mr. Dorado’s choice of forum. As such, this Court is not a position

to champion Mr. Dorado’s choice of forum without input from him.

Case 2:06-cv-01847-GEB-EFB Document 14 Filed 08/18/06 Page 3 of 4
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

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, this Court:

1. GRANTS defendant Laborers Pension Trust Fund of Northern California’s motion to

transfer venue to this Court’s Sacramento division; and

2. DIRECTS this Court’s clerk to arrange transfer of this action to this Court’s Sacramento

division.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01847-GEB-EFB Document 14 Filed 08/18/06 Page 4 of 4