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

ORDER RE: VENUE 

PAGE – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

JCA CORPORATION, )

) CASE NO. C06-0632RSM

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER GRANTING MOTION

v. ) TO TRANSFER VENUE

)

TREDIT TIRE & WHEEL CO., INC., )

)

Defendant. )

_________________________________________)

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on defendant’s motion for change of venue. (Dkt.

#2). Defendant argues that this case should be transferred to the United States District Court for

the Northern District of Indiana, as a related case to Tredit Tire & Wheel Company, Inc. v. JCA

Corporation, Civil Action No. 06CV0214RM (N.D. Ind. 2006). Defendant notes that the same

parties are involved in both cases, and asserts that the cases arise out of the same facts and

circumstances.

Plaintiff opposes the transfer request, and asserts that these two cases are distinct from

each other and should continue in each of chosen forums. (Dkt. #9).

For the reasons set forth below, the Court disagrees with plaintiff and GRANTS

defendant’s motion for transfer of venue.

Case 2:06-cv-00632-RSM Document 14 Filed 08/14/06 Page 1 of 5
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

ORDER RE: VENUE 

PAGE – 2

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A district court may transfer a civil action “for the convenience of parties and witnesses

[and] in the interest of justice . . . to any other district or division where it might have been

brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The moving party bears the burden of showing that jurisdiction

and proper venue would exist in the district to which a transfer is requested. Commodity Futures

Trading Comm’n v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979). The district court has broad

discretion to consider case-specific circumstances. Deputy v. Long-Term Disability Plan of

Sponsor Aventis Pharms., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22583, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2002)

(Henderson, J.).

When determining whether a transfer is proper, this Court employs a two-step analysis. 

First, the Court considers the threshold question of whether the case might have been brought in

the forum to which the transfer is sought. See Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 409, 414

(9th Cir. 1985). If the Court concludes that venue is proper in the transferee court, it then

balances the plaintiff’s interest to freely choose a litigation forum against considerations of

convenience of defendant and witnesses and the interest of justice. See id.

B. Analysis

Defendant argues that trying this case in the Northern District of Indiana serves the

interest of justice because the same facts and circumstances serve as the basis for both actions. It

further asserts that the current action was simply filed in response to, and in defense of, the

claims made by it as plaintiff in the Indiana action. Defendant also asserts that litigating the two

cases in different parts of the country would be inefficient and a waste of judicial resources.

In opposition of the motion to transfer, plaintiff argues that transfer is inappropriate

because it has chosen the proper forum for its case, great weight should be lent to that choice of

forum, transfer to Indiana is not more convenient to the parties and witnesses, and the two

actions involve distinct claims not arising from the same facts and circumstances.

Case 2:06-cv-00632-RSM Document 14 Filed 08/14/06 Page 2 of 5
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

ORDER RE: VENUE 

PAGE – 3

Although both the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington

and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana are both appropriate

venues, the Court now finds, as further explained below, that plaintiff’s interest in having the

Western District of Washington as a litigation forum is outweighed by the interest of justice in

this case. Defendant has met its burden for transfer of the instant action.

1. Action Could Have Been Brought in Transferee Forum

Before the Court may transfer a case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), it must determine

that the transferee court will be a proper venue. Here, defendant asserts that this action could

have been brought in the Northern District of Indiana because its principal place of business is

located in that District. Plaintiff does not dispute that assertion, and can not. The instant action

was brought in federal court pursuant to its diversity jurisdiction. “[W]herein jurisdiction is

founded only on diversity of citizenship,” a civil action may be brought in the judicial district

where the defendant resides. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(1). Accordingly, the Court agrees that this

action could have been properly brought in the Northern District of Indiana.

2. Convenience and Interests of Justice

As noted above, once this Court determines that this case could have been brought in the

transferee forum, the Court must then weigh plaintiff’s choice of forum against the convenience

of defendant and the witnesses and the interests of justice.

A plaintiff’s choice of forum is afforded substantial weight in the Court’s balancing test. 

Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). Indeed, “it

is incumbent upon the moving party to demonstrate ‘a strong case for a transfer’ by showing that

the interests of justice and of the parties will be served most fairly and efficiently in the transferee

forum. Where the court finds that the relevant factors balance equally, the plaintiff is entitled to

his choice of forum.” Snyder v. Madera Broadcasting, Inc., 872 F. Supp. 1191, 1199 (E.D.N.Y.

2003) (citations and internal quotation omitted).

Based on the record before it, this Court finds that defendant has demonstrated the

Case 2:06-cv-00632-RSM Document 14 Filed 08/14/06 Page 3 of 5
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

 Witnesses appearing in both actions would also be required to appear in two different

districts in potentially the same time frames. However, both cases appear to involve witnesses

from Washington and Indiana; thus, some witnesses will be inconvenienced regardless of where

the proceedings take place. Accordingly, this element does not weigh in favor of either party. 

ORDER RE: VENUE 

PAGE – 4

interests of justice and of the parties will be served most fairly and efficiently in the transferee

forum. First, the Court finds no inconvenience in requiring plaintiff to litigate the instant action

in Indiana. Because defendant had instituted a prior lawsuit against plaintiff in the Northern

District of Indiana, and plaintiff does not appear to oppose defending the action in that forum, the

instant parties will be litigants in Indiana regardless of the outcome of this motion. Thus,

requiring plaintiff to litigate the instant action in Indiana will not add additional inconvenience or

burden to plaintiff, nor has plaintiff asserted such an argument. On the other hand, if this Court

were to deny the instant motion, both parties would be required to litigate these cases in two

different districts at the same time, causing inconvenience and additional expense to defendant.1

Furthermore, the Court agrees with defendant that the interest of justice weighs in favor of

transferring this case to Indiana. The question of which forum will better serve the interest of

justice is of predominant importance on the question of transfer, and factors involving

convenience of parties and witnesses are subordinate. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has

held that transfer is proper if there is even just the possibility of consolidation of discovery or

witness testimony, whereas actual consolidation of the cases may not be necessary. A.J. Indus.,

Inc. v. United States Dist. Court for Cent. Dist., 503 F.2d 384, 389 (9th Cir. 1974). The instant

action and the Indiana action involve the same parties, and apparently many of the same

witnesses. It also appears that the claims raised in each action are intimately involved. While

plaintiff in the instant action alleges that its claims arise out of unpaid invoices pertaining to tires

not part of the recall claims in the Indiana action, it appears from the record that defendant has

withheld payment to cover recall and warranty expenses which are the subject of the Indiana suit. 

Thus, the same or substantially the same facts appear to give rise to both law suits.

For all of these reasons the Court finds transfer to the Northern District of Indiana

Case 2:06-cv-00632-RSM Document 14 Filed 08/14/06 Page 4 of 5
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

ORDER RE: VENUE 

PAGE – 5

appropriate.

III. CONCLUSION

Having reviewed defendant’s motion for transfer (Dkt. #2), plaintiff’s opposition to that

motion (Dkt. #9), defendant’s reply in support (Dkt. #13), the declarations in support of those

briefs, and the balance of the record, the Court does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) Defendant’s Motion for Change of Venue (Dkt. #2) is GRANTED.

(2) This case is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Northern District of Indiana, pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

(3) The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case and transfer all original documents to the

Northern District of Indiana. The Clerk shall also send a copy of this Order to all counsel of

record.

DATED this 14 day of August, 2006.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:06-cv-00632-RSM Document 14 Filed 08/14/06 Page 5 of 5