Saperstein v. Dumont Aircraft Sales, LLC et al, No. 3:2016cv01926 - Document 34 (N.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE by Hon. William H. Orrick denying 10 Motion to Transfer Case. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2016)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GUY T. SAPERSTEIN, Case No. 16-cv-01926-WHO Plaintiff, 8 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE v. 9 10 DUMONT AIRCRAFT SALES, LLC, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 10 Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 INTRODUCTION 12 13 Plaintiff Guy Saperstein, a resident of this district, brings this breach of contract action 14 against defendants Dumont Aircraft Sales, LLC (“Dumont”) and Dumont employee Kevin Wargo, 15 both residents of the District of Delaware. Saperstein’s claims arise out of an unsuccessful 16 negotiation between the parties for the purchase of a private jet. Defendants move to transfer 17 venue to the District of Delaware, arguing that the case should be transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 18 1404(a) “for the convenience of the parties and witnesses” and “in the interest of justice.” 28 19 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Because defendants have not shown that the relevant factors strongly favor 20 transfer, their motion is DENIED. 21 22 BACKGROUND The following facts are taken from Saperstein’s complaint and the declarations submitted 23 by the parties in connection with defendant’s motion to transfer venue. Saperstein is a resident of 24 Piedmont, California who began looking to buy a private jet in the fall of 2015. Saperstein Decl. ¶ 25 2 (Dkt. No. 20-1). Saperstein entered into negotiations with Justin Sullivan, a former salesperson 26 for Dumont, which is headquartered in New Castle, Delaware. Id. ¶¶ 3-4; First Wargo Decl. ¶¶ 3, 27 6 (Dkt. No. 10-1). The negotiations were eventually taken over by Wargo, and then by the 28 attorneys for Saperstein and Dumont. Saperstein Decl. ¶ 6; First Wargo Decl. ¶ 6. Dumont’s two 1 principals are Wargo and Dan Piraino, both residents of Wilmington, Delaware. First Wargo 2 Decl. ¶ 16. 3 The parties disagree on who initiated the negotiations. According to Wargo, “Mr. 4 Saperstein reached out to Dumont at its offices in Delaware to initiate the purchase.” First Wargo 5 Decl. ¶ 8; see also Mot. at 3 (Dkt. No. 10). According to Saperstein, “[d]efendants initiated [their] 6 solicitation communications.” Saperstein Decl. ¶ 5. 7 Saperstein and Wargo both maintain that they conducted the negotiations from their 8 respective home states. Saperstein asserts that he “was located in California for all 9 [communications with defendants].” Id. Wargo contends that “at least some of Mr. Saperstein’s communications with me about this transaction did not originate in California as he was on 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 vacation in Hawaii during negotiations, and later in the sale process he was overseas.” First 12 Wargo Decl. ¶ 9. Wargo also asserts that “[t]o the best of [his] recollection,” he only 13 communicated with Saperstein while he was in Delaware, though he acknowledges that “it is 14 possible that [he] spoke to Mr. Saperstein while on the road traveling for other business.” Id. ¶ 7. 15 Wargo states that he “never traveled to California to meet with Mr. Saperstein or otherwise to 16 address this transaction.” Id. 17 A letter of intent (“LOI”) was drafted under which Saperstein offered to buy a Dassault- 18 Breguet Falcon 50 business jet (the “Aircraft”) for $2.2 million. Compl. ¶ 8 (Dkt. No. 1); see also 19 Compl Ex. A (Dkt. No. 1). The LOI required Dumont to complete some work on the plane, 20 including an “A inspection,” interior refurbishment, and the installation of Wifi. LOI at 1. In 21 addition, the LOI required Dumont to deliver the plane (1) “with all its flight, maintenance and 22 parts manuals, weight and balance documents, along with all the aircraft’s current wiring 23 diagrams, engine and airframe records;” (2) “free of corrosion, fuel leaks, and hydraulic leaks that 24 exceed the manufacturer’s tolerances, and . . . in airworthy condition with all systems in proper 25 working order in accordance with the manufacturers’ maintenance manuals;” (3) “free of all liens 26 and encumbrances;” (4) “current on the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance program, in 27 compliance with all applicable mandatory service bulletins and FAA airworthiness directives;” 28 and (5) by March 10, 2016. Id. The LOI required Saperstein to give Dumont a “nonrefundable 2 1 deposit” of $250,000. Id. The LOI is silent as to where the Aircraft was to be delivered. Dumont 2 contends that “the physical delivery of the Aircraft under the LOI was to take place in Delaware, 3 not in California.” First Wargo Decl. ¶ 12. Saperstein alleges that “the parties’ contract was 4 intended to be performed in California.” Compl. ¶ 6. 5 Saperstein and Wargo signed the LOI on January 15, 2015. Id. ¶ 8. In accordance with the 6 LOI, Saperstein transferred the $250,000 deposit to Dumont in two wire transfers on January 12, 7 2016 and January 15, 2016. Saperstein Decl. ¶ 10. 8 9 Dumont completed the tasks required by the LOI in several different states. Dumont performed the refurbishment work at its Illinois facility, although some “finishing touches” were completed at its Delaware facility. First Wargo Decl. ¶¶ 10, 15. Dumont performed the “A 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 Inspection” at a third-party facility in Florida. Id. ¶ 11. According to Wargo, the Aircraft was 12 never in California “at a time relevant here,” and “[n]one of the inspectors or maintenance 13 personnel who worked on the Aircraft did that work in California nor, to my knowledge, do they 14 live or work in California.” Id. ¶¶ 18, 25(e). 15 Saperstein alleges that he discovered several misrepresentations by Wargo, Sullivan, and 16 Dumont after signing the LOI. He asserts that Wargo and Sullivan represented that Dumont had a 17 large charter business that had grown from zero to 21 planes in only a few years, but that in reality 18 Dumont operated only three planes and had been in the charter business for less than a year. 19 Compl. ¶ 9; Saperstein Decl. ¶¶ 7-8. Saperstein states that the nature of Dumont’s charter 20 business was important to him because he intended to charter his plane through Dumont to recoup 21 some of his costs. Compl. ¶ 9; Saperstein Decl. ¶ 7. 22 Saperstein also asserts that Dumont failed to deliver the Aircraft in the condition required 23 by the LOI by March 10, 2016. Compl. ¶ 13. He alleges that Dumont failed to deliver the 24 Aircraft because it required “substantial maintenance and repairs” and because it was not owned 25 by Dumont and was subject to a $1.5 million lien. Id. ¶ 12. Defendants do not dispute that the 26 Aircraft was (and is) owned by James Sipala, a resident of Wilmington, Delaware, or that the 27 Aircraft was subject to a $1.5 million lien. Second Wargo Decl. ¶¶ 4, 11 (Dkt. No. 23-1). 28 According to Wargo, “[t]he structure of the transaction was for Dumont, when [Saperstein] was 3 1 ready to close on the sale, to purchase the Aircraft from Mr. Sipala, pay off any obligations and 2 remove any associated liens, and then ‘flip’ the Aircraft to [Saperstein] in a subsequent sale, which 3 is how many of these transactions are structured.” Id. ¶ 11. Saperstein informed Dumont that he was still willing to purchase the Aircraft if it passed a 4 5 visual inspection at Dumont’s facility in Delaware and a full inspection at a third-party facility. 6 Compl. ¶ 16. Dumont initially refused, but subsequently consented to the visual inspection. Id. ¶¶ 7 17-18. Saperstein hired Edward Wetzel, an airplane mechanic and resident of California, to 8 perform the visual inspection. Saperstein Decl. ¶ 16; Wetzel Decl. ¶¶ 2-3 (Dkt. No. 20-3). Wetzel 9 states that during the inspection he “discovered a number of problems with the Aircraft’s logbooks, maintenance records, and physical condition, including a fuel leak, exterior corrosion 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 and missing repair records, such as the records necessary to establish compliance with mandatory 12 Airworthiness Directives issued by the Federal Aviation Administration.” Wetzel Decl. ¶ 3.1 Saperstein alleges that Dumont responded to some of the problems identified by Wetzel 13 14 but “provided vague and incomplete responses to many other problems and no response at all as to 15 others.” Compl. ¶ 19. When Dumont refused to allow a full inspection of the Aircraft, Saperstein 16 requested that Dumont return his $250,000 deposit. Id. ¶¶ 20-21. Dumont refused. Id. ¶ 21. 17 Saperstein filed his complaint on April 12, 2016. Dkt. No. 1. He brings six causes of 18 action: (1) fraudulent inducement; (2) negligent misrepresentation; (3) breach of contract; 19 (4) rescission; (5) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (6) conversion; and 20 (7) money had and received. Compl. ¶¶ 22-60. The first two causes of action are asserted against 21 both Dumont and Wargo; the remaining five are asserted against only Dumont. Id. Saperstein 22 seeks damages, rescission, disgorgement, and costs of suit. Id. at Prayer for Relief. He does not 23 seek specific performance. Id. Defendants filed their motion to transfer venue on May 31, 2016. Dkt. No. 10. I heard 24 25 26 27 28 1 According to Wargo, the Aircraft and its records are located at Dumont’s facility in Delaware and “prove that Saperstein’s uninformed allegations regarding the condition of the Aircraft are false.” First Wargo Decl. ¶ 25(d); see also Second Wargo Decl. ¶ 13. Wargo claims that “[m]any of these documents, by FAA rule, must remain on board the Aircraft and any inspector or expert will undoubtedly demand to review the originals of these documents.” Second Wargo Decl. ¶ 13. 4 1 argument from the parties on July 20, 2016. Dkt. No. 28. LEGAL STANDARD 2 “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may 3 4 transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to 5 any district or division to which all parties have consented.”2 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). A motion to 6 transfer venue under section 1404(a) requires the district court to weigh multiple factors in 7 determining whether transfer is appropriate in the particular case. Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 8 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). Courts in this district 9 usually consider the following eight factors: (1) the plaintiff’s choice of forum; (2) the convenience of the parties; (3) the convenience of the witnesses; (4) ease of access to the evidence; (5) familiarity of each forum with the applicable law; (6) feasibility of consolidation of other claims; (7) any local interest in the controversy; and (8) the relative court congestion and time [to] trial in each forum. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 Gerin v. Aegon USA, Inc., No. 06-cv-005407-SBA, 2007 WL 1033472, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 14 2007); accord Lax v. Toyota Motor Corp., 65 F. Supp. 3d 772, 776 (N.D. Cal. 2014); Barnes & 15 Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp., 823 F. Supp. 2d 980, 993 (N.D. Cal. 2011); Vu v. Ortho-McNeil Pharm., 16 Inc., 602 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1156 (N.D. Cal. 2009). 17 “[T]he district court has discretion to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an 18 individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.” Jones, 211 F.3d at 498 19 (9th Cir. 2000). However, “[t]he general rule is that a plaintiff’s choice of forum is afforded 20 substantial weight.” Carolina Cas. Co. v. Data Broad. Corp., 158 F. Supp. 2d 1044, 1048 (N.D. 21 Cal. 2001); see also Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987) (noting that “great weight 22 is generally accorded [the] plaintiff’s choice of forum”); Kaur v. U.S. Airways, Inc., No. 12-cv- 23 05963-EMC, 2013 WL 1891391, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2013) (“Generally, the plaintiff’s choice 24 25 26 27 28 2 The parties do not dispute that this action could have been brought in the District of Delaware. 5 1 of forum is accorded significant deference.”).3 Accordingly, in the ordinary case, “the defendant 2 must make a strong showing of inconvenience to warrant upsetting the plaintiff’s choice of 3 forum.” Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986); see 4 also Florens Container v. Cho Yang Shipping, 245 F. Supp. 2d 1086, 1092 (N.D. Cal. 2002) 5 (“[P]laintiff’s choice of forum is accorded substantial weight . . . , and courts generally will not 6 transfer an action unless the ‘convenience’ and ‘justice’ factors strongly favor venue elsewhere.”). 7 DISCUSSION 8 I. SAPERSTEIN’S CHOICE OF FORUM Defendants do not contend that Saperstein’s choice of forum is entitled to less than 10 substantial weight. See Mot. at 6-7. They argue instead that other considerations “far outweigh’ 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 9 his decision to file in this district. Id. I agree that this action has sufficient contacts with this 12 district for Saperstein’s choice of forum to be afforded substantial weight. Accordingly, 13 defendants “must make a strong showing of inconvenience to warrant upsetting [Saperstein’s] 14 choice of forum.” Decker, 805 F.2d at 843. 15 II. OTHER FACTORS 16 Defendants have not made this showing. They make no arguments with respect to the fifth 17 through eighth factors and instead argue that the convenience of the parties, the convenience of the 18 witnesses, and ease of access to the evidence justify transfer to Delaware. For the following 19 reasons, I disagree. 20 A. Convenience of the Parties and Their Witnesses 21 Neither this district nor the District of Delaware is significantly more convenient to the 22 parties, because the parties and their witnesses will need to travel significant distances whichever 23 venue is chosen. 24 25 26 27 28 3 Exceptions to this general rule include where the case is filed as a class action, and where the plaintiff’s choice of forum was motivated by forum shopping (such as where the forum lacks significant connections to the allegations in the complaint). See Lou, 834 F.2d at 739; Kaur, 2013 WL 1891391, at *3; see also Foster v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., No. 07-cv-04928-SI, 2007 WL 4410408, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2007) (“Where forum shopping is evident, . . . courts should disregard plaintiff’s choice of forum.”). As discussed below, defendants do not contend that Saperstein’s choice of forum is entitled to less than substantial weight. See Mot. at 6-7. 6 Defendants identify three specific Dumont employees as potential witnesses: Kevin 1 2 Wargo, Amber Martin, and Dan Piraino. First Wargo Decl. ¶¶ 16-17. Defendants state that they 3 also expect to call as witnesses unidentified Dumont employees based in Delaware and Florida 4 “who flew the Aircraft to and from various facilities for inspections and refurbishment work in 5 connection with the sale to [Saperstein].” Second Wargo Decl. ¶ 19. It appears that defendants 6 may also wish to present testimony from unidentified Dumont employees based in Illinois who 7 inspected and/or worked on the Aircraft. First Wargo Decl. ¶¶ 25(f)-25(h). Saperstein states that he and Wetzel will testify, as well as “possibly” his negotiating 8 9 10 attorneys, who appear to live in Washington state. Oppo. at 8-9 (Dkt. No. 20); see also Reply at 4 (asserting that Saperstein’s negotiating attorneys are in “Washington”). Although it would be inconvenient for Wargo, Martin, Piraino, and the Delaware, Florida, United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 and Illinois based Dumont employees to travel to California, it would also be inconvenient for 13 Saperstein, Wetzel, Saperstein’s negotiating attorneys, and Dumont’s Florida and Illinois based 14 employees to travel to Delaware. Even assuming that all of the potential witnesses identified by 15 the parties are actually likely to testify, the convenience of the parties and their witnesses does not 16 favor transfer. 17 B. Convenience of Third-Party Witnesses 18 “In considering the convenience of witnesses, courts have recognized that the convenience 19 of non-party witnesses is more important than the convenience of party witnesses.” Kaur, 2013 20 WL 1891391, at *5 (emphasis omitted); accord Hansell v. TracFone Wireless, Inc., No. 13-cv- 21 03440-EMC, 2013 WL 6155618, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2013; Brown v. Abercrombie & Fitch 22 Co., No. 13-cv-05205-YGR, 2014 WL 715082, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2014). Saperstein asserts 23 that there are no third-party witnesses in this case. Oppo. at 8-9. Defendants identify one third- 24 party witness in Delaware: Sipala, the Aircraft’s current owner. Reply at 3-4.4 They also identify 25 26 27 28 4 Defendants first raise Sipala as a potential witness in their reply brief and the accompanying Second Wargo Declaration. Saperstein objects on the ground that the identification of Sipala for the first time in reply constitutes improper reply evidence. Dkt. No. 25. Even assuming that Sipala is properly considered for the purposes of this motion, his potential testimony does not justify transfer for the reasons discussed below. 7 1 two groups of third-party witnesses located in neither California nor Delaware: (1) witnesses 2 associated with Banyan Aircraft Sales, which served as the Aircraft’s broker, in Florida, Reply at 3 4, Second Wargo Decl. ¶ 15; and (2) witnesses associated with Banyan Aircraft Maintenance, 4 which was responsible for the maintenance of the Aircraft while it was being marketed for sale, 5 also in Florida, Reply at 4, Second Wargo Decl. ¶ 16. Defendants assert that Delaware is 6 substantially more convenient for these Banyan witnesses because “the expense and 7 inconvenience of participating in litigation in California is substantially greater [for them] than the 8 costs and disruption of making a day trip to Delaware.” Reply at 4. 9 Although I agree that Sipala would be inconvenienced by a trial in this district, defendants have not made a strong showing of inconvenience to third-party witnesses. In determining 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 whether the convenience of witnesses favors transfer, courts consider not only how many 12 witnesses each side has and the location of those witnesses, but also the importance of the 13 witnesses. See Saleh v. Titan Corp., 361 F. Supp. 2d 1152, 1160-61 (S.D. Cal. 2005); see also 14 Gates Learjet Corp. v. Jensen, 743 F.2d 1325, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1984) (in forum non conveniens 15 case, finding that the district court “improperly focused on the number of witnesses in each 16 location” and “should have examined the materiality and importance of the anticipated witnesses’ 17 testimony and then determined their accessibility and convenience to the forum”). Defendants 18 indicate that they may rely on witnesses from the Banyan entities, see Second Wargo Decl. ¶ 14- 19 17, stating that such witnesses have “knowledge regarding the marketing, pre-purchase 20 inspection . . . , and sale of the Aircraft to Dumont,” id. ¶ 15. However, defendants do not identify 21 any specific witnesses from the Banyan entities, nor do they describe any specific testimony that 22 those witnesses would give. See Carolina, 158 F. Supp. 2d at 1049 (“To demonstrate 23 inconvenience of witnesses, the moving party must identify relevant witnesses . . . and describe 24 their testimony and its relevance.”). Perhaps the Banyan witnesses would be able to provide some 25 relevant testimony, but it is not clear how their testimony would not be cumulative of the other 26 testimony and documentary evidence in the case. Further, a trial would place a significant burden 27 on the Banyan witnesses whether in this district or in the District of Delaware, as both venues 28 would entail multi-hour flights and, presumably, hotel stays for multi-day visits. 8 Given Sipala’s presence in Delaware, I am persuaded that this factor favors transfer. But 1 2 given the paucity of evidence regarding the Banyan witnesses, I find that it favors transfer only 3 slightly. Cf. Budget Blinds, Inc. v. Mahmood, No. 10-cv-00552, 2010 WL 3001629, at *6-7 (C.D. 4 Cal. July 29, 2010) (denying motion to transfer venue where the defendant identified three 5 witnesses in the transferee forum, but only specifically identified one of them and did not 6 “describe how [any of the third-party witness’s] testimony is relevant to the case or whether the 7 testimony is material”). C. 8 Ease of Access to Evidence 1. 9 Documentary Evidence Defendants contend that “nearly all” of the “documents and other evidence pertaining to 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 the Aircraft and the transaction . . . are located in Delaware.” First Wargo Decl. ¶ 25(j). They 12 state that this evidence includes log books, manuals, and other records that are now stored either 13 on the Aircraft itself or at Dumont’s Delaware facility. Id. ¶ 13. Saperstein counters that many of 14 the relevant documents are in his or Wetzel’s possession, and that, with respect to the other 15 documents, “there is no cognizable burden or inconvenience in copying documents located in 16 Delaware and producing them electronically or by mail in California.” Oppo. at 9. Defendants 17 respond that copying and transmitting the documents from Delaware to California is infeasible 18 because “FAA regulations require all such maintenance and certification documents to remain 19 with the aircraft.”5 Reply at 3. Defendants cite to 14 C.F.R. § 91.203, which requires an 20 airworthiness certificate to be displayed in the aircraft, and 14 C.F.R. § 91.9, which requires a 21 current, approved flight manual to be available in the aircraft. Reply at 3. Defendants further 22 assert that “FAA regulation[s] and the standard practices in the airframe maintenance and 23 inspection industry” require that an airplane’s records be inspected “where they exist – with the 24 airplane.” Id. Saperstein has the better of these arguments. Defendants assert that all maintenance and 25 26 27 28 5 Like the potential testimony of Sipala, defendants did not raise the FAA regulations argument until their reply brief. Again, even assuming that this argument is properly considered for the purposes of this motion, it does not justify transfer for the reasons discussed below. 9 1 certification documents must “remain with the aircraft,” but defendants cite no authority indicating 2 that copies of the documents could not be made, transmitted, and used for the purposes of this 3 litigation, while leaving the originals of the documents in place. The FAA regulations cited by 4 defendants, for example, do not prohibit or discourage copying of the airworthiness certificate or 5 flight manual. See 14 C.F.R. § 91.203; 14 C.F.R. § 91.9. Defendants also fail to cite any authority 6 to support their assertion that “any inspector or expert will undoubtedly demand to review the 7 originals of [the] documents.” Second Wargo Decl. ¶ 13. Even assuming that this turns out to be 8 true, it is not clear why it would weigh in favor of transfer to Delaware. If defendants’ expert 9 demands to review the originals of the documents, he or she presumably will have easy access to them in Delaware. On the other hand, if Saperstein’s expert (Wetzel) demands to review the 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 originals, he will have to travel to Delaware, but that is Saperstein’s problem, not defendants’. 12 Further, defendants do not dispute that a substantial portion of the relevant documents in this case, 13 such as those concerning the correspondence between Saperstein and Dumont, are not governed 14 by FAA regulations and can be easily copied and transmitted. 15 In sum, defendants have not shown that there are any relevant documents that cannot be 16 copied and transmitted or otherwise inspected with minimal inconvenience to defendants. The 17 location of the documentary evidence does not favor transfer. Cf. Lax, 65 F. Supp. 3d at 780 18 (“[T]he location of documents is increasingly irrelevant in the age of electronic discovery, when 19 thousands of pages of documents can be easily digitized and transported to any appropriate 20 forum.”). 21 22 2. The Aircraft Defendants also argue that the presence of the Aircraft in Delaware favors transfer. Mot. 23 at 7. Saperstein responds that (1) the current location of the Aircraft is not relevant because the 24 issue at trial will be the condition of the Aircraft at the time of Wetzel’s visual inspection, meaning 25 that a jury visit to the Aircraft will not be instructive; (2) if a jury visit to the Aircraft is necessary, 26 the Aircraft can be flown to California; and (3) to the extent that further inspection of the Aircraft 27 during discovery is necessary, it will be Saperstein, not defendants, who will be inconvenienced, 28 in that he will have to fly Wetzel to Delaware to conduct the inspection. Oppo. at 10, 10 n.4. 10 1 Defendants respond that flying the Aircraft from Delaware to California would be extremely 2 expensive. Reply at 3. 3 Saperstein again has the better of these arguments. Defendants have not shown that the 4 presence of the Aircraft in Delaware is likely to cause them any meaningful inconvenience. While 5 this would be a much closer question if flying the Aircraft to California was likely to be necessary, 6 I agree with Saperstein that a jury visit to the Aircraft is unlikely to be instructive in this case, and 7 defendants offer no reason to conclude otherwise. Saperstein may still suffer some inconvenience 8 during discovery if he has to fly Wetzel to Delaware for a further inspection, but as Saperstein 9 points out, he is “entitled to choose to live with that inconvenience so that he may sue in his home 10 state.” Oppo. at 10. CONCLUSION United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Defendants’ motion to transfer venue to the District of Delaware is DENIED. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 16 Dated: August 11, 2016 ______________________________________ WILLIAM H. ORRICK United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11