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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

JOSEPH L. DEXTER and 

SHIRLEY A. DEXTER,

NO. CIV. S 04-2643 MCE KJM

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

FORWARD AIR, INC., 

STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS

WORLDWIDE, INC., and 

THE HERTZ CORPORATION,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

The present action involves alleged driver negligence that

occurred on a public roadway in Houston, Texas. On December 13,

2003, a tractor-trailer owned by Forward Air, Inc., rear-ended a

shuttle van carrying Joseph L. Dexter (“Mr. Dexter”), a pilot for

Continental Airlines. (Def’s Mot. at 2:6-3:12; Opp’n 2:9-27.) 

Plaintiffs Joseph L. Dexter and Shirley A. Dexter (collectively

“Plaintiffs”) filed a negligence action in the Eastern District

of California on December 14, 2004. Defendants Forward Air,

Case 2:04-cv-02643-MCE -JFM Document 21 Filed 05/25/05 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

27

28

 This matter was deemed suitable for decision without oral 1

argument. Local Rule 78-230(h).

2

Inc., Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., and The Hertz

Corp., (collectively “Defendants”) have asked the Court to

transfer the case to the Southern District of Texas based upon

convenience of the parties and witnesses and a lack of

“connection(s)” with the Eastern District of California. For the

reasons discussed below, Defendants’ motion for change of venue

is DENIED.1

The present action is before this Court on the basis of

diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiffs are citizens of California

claiming over $75,000 in damages and Defendants are citizens of

other states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Furthermore, as defined by

28 U.S.C. § 1391(c), all defendants reside in the Eastern

District of California (Opp’n at 1:23-26), making the Eastern

District of California a proper venue. 

“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the

interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil

action to any other district . . . where it might have been

brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

Under § 1404(a), this Court has discretion “to adjudicate

motions for transfer according to an individualized, case-by-case

consideration of convenience and fairness.” Stewart Org. v.

Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (internal quotations and

citations omitted); Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495,

498 (9th Cir. 2000). “A motion to transfer venue under § 1404(a)

requires the court to weigh multiple factors in its determination

whether transfer is appropriate in a particular case. For

Case 2:04-cv-02643-MCE -JFM Document 21 Filed 05/25/05 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

27

28

3

example, the court may consider” the following, as applicable: 1)

the Plaintiff’s choice of forum, 2) respective party contacts

with the forum, 3) contacts relating to the Plaintiff’s cause of

action in the forum, 4) the cost of litigation in either forum,

5) the ease of access to sources of proof, 6) the complexity of

the governing law, 7) the availability of compulsory process to

compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses, and finally

8) other factors that, in the interest of justice, impact the

convenience or fairness of a particular venue. Jones, 211 F.3d

at 498.

In this case, the Court finds that the first and third Jones

guidelines, i.e., Plaintiffs’ choice of forum and the contacts in

the forum relating to Plaintiffs’ cause of action, are

dispositive as to the question of appropriate venue. The first

and third guidelines either address or subsume the remaining

guidelines, many of which the Court finds to be of little moment

given the facts in this case and the convenient flow of

information afforded by modern communication systems. 

With respect to the first Jones guideline, California is

Plaintiffs’ choice of forum. The Court affords considerable

deference to the general principle that “the plaintiff’s choice

of forum should rarely be disturbed,” especially when evidence

and witnesses vital to Plaintiffs’ claims are located within the

jurisdiction of that forum. Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S.

501, 508 (1947) (superceded by statute on other grounds); Norwood

v. Kirkpatrick, 349 U.S. 29, 32 (1955); Jones, 211 F.3d at 499

(attributing significant weight to the location of “relevant

witnesses and other sources of proof” when considering a

Case 2:04-cv-02643-MCE -JFM Document 21 Filed 05/25/05 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

27

28

4

particular venue).

With respect to the third Jones guideline, in consideration

of a potential trial and trial preparation, the Court finds that

“more of the relevant witnesses and other sources of proof [are]

located in California.” Jones, 211 F.3d at 499. Defendants

assert that the majority of the liability witnesses are located

in Texas (Reply at 3:14-18), while Plaintiffs assert that the

majority of the damages witnesses are located in California

(Opp’n at 8:9-12). The Court finds that this case turns

primarily on a question of damages, rather than a question of

liability. Given the basic facts (i.e., that a moving truck

rear-ended a stationary vehicle and caused a personal injury),

any liability issues will be dramatically overshadowed by the

issues pertaining to Plaintiffs’ injuries. 

Due to the latency of Mr. Dexter’s injuries, he only spent a

few hours under medical care in Texas before he returned to the

Eastern District of California. (Opp’n at 3:2-3.) Consequently,

the vast majority of Plaintiffs’ diagnosis, treatment, and

rehabilitation occurred in Eastern District of California. Not

surprisingly, all of the medical personnel who managed Mr.

Dexter’s care reside in the Eastern District of California. 

(Opp’n at 3:5-18.) Furthermore, the flight surgeon, whose

approval Mr. Dexter needs in order to return to work, lives in

the Eastern District of California. (Opp’n at 3:19-24.) Finally,

Mr. Dexter’s primary care physicians, who may be called as

witnesses if Defendants argue the existence of any preexisting

medical conditions, are all located in the Eastern District of

California. (Opp’n at 3:25-28.) 

Case 2:04-cv-02643-MCE -JFM Document 21 Filed 05/25/05 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

27

28

5

In light of the controlling federal precedent and in the

interest of maximizing convenience and fairness, the Court finds

that the Eastern District of California is a more appropriate

venue than the Southern District of Texas. For the

aforementioned reasons, Defendants’ motion for change of venue to

the Southern District of Texas is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 24, 2005

__________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02643-MCE -JFM Document 21 Filed 05/25/05 Page 5 of 5