Cambridge v. Millard Refrigerated Services, Inc., No. 4:2012cv01460 - Document 21 (N.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S 15 MOTION TO TRANSFER. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/16/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2012)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Cambridge v. Millard Refrigerated Services, Inc. Doc. 21 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 MEGAN CAMBRIDGE, 5 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 No. C 12-1460 CW Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER v. MILLARD REFRIGERATED SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1-100, Defendants. ________________________________/ Defendant Millard Refrigerator Services, Inc. moves, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), to transfer venue of this personal injury 13 case from the Northern District of California to the Southern 14 15 District of Alabama, for the convenience of parties and witnesses 16 and in the interests of justice. 17 opposes the motion. 18 decided on the papers. 19 parties, the Court grants Defendant's motion to transfer. The motion was taken under submission and Having considered the papers filed by the 20 21 Plaintiff Megan Cambridge BACKGROUND Defendant, a provider of refrigeration and distribution 22 services, is incorporated in Georgia and has its principal place 23 24 of business in Nebraska. Defendant has two facilities in 25 California, located in Manteca and Riverside, neither of which is 26 in the Northern District of California. 27 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Plaintiff, an environmental specialist, lives in Sacramento, 2 California, which is located in the Eastern District of 3 California. 4 British Petroleum spill cleanup in Theodore, Alabama, when she was 5 exposed to ammonia from a plume which originated from Defendant's 6 On August 23, 2010, Plaintiff was working on the refrigeration facility, located in Theodore. Plaintiff alleges 7 that she immediately began experiencing severe emotional distress, 8 9 a sore throat, watery and burning eyes, burning in her lungs and United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 esophagus and significant shortness of breath. 11 ambulance to a hospital emergency room and treated. 12 that the ammonia exposure has caused and will continue to cause 13 her emotional distress, pain, suffering, discomfort, shortness of 14 She was taken by She alleges breath, lost wages and medical expenses.1 15 On February 23, 2012, Plaintiff filed this complaint in San 16 17 Francisco superior court alleging state law causes of action for 18 negligence, negligence per se, strict liability for ultrahazardous 19 activity and negligent infliction of emotional distress. 20 22, 2012, Defendant removed the action on the basis of diversity 21 jurisdiction, and now moves to have it transferred to the Southern 22 On March District of Alabama. 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Defendant objects to Plaintiff's description of her symptoms without the support of medical evidence. However, these are Plaintiff's allegations; the Court does not consider Plaintiff's medical condition in determining the outcome of this motion. Therefore, Defendant's objection is overruled. 2 LEGAL STANDARD 1 2 Title 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) states: “For the convenience of 3 parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district 4 court may transfer any civil action to any other district or 5 division where it might have been brought.” 6 A motion for transfer under § 1404(a) is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial 7 court. That discretion requires “an individualized case by case 8 9 consideration of convenience and fairness.” DeFazio v. Hollister United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Employee Share Ownership Trust, 406 F. Supp. 2d 1085, 1088 (E.D. 11 Cal. 2005). 12 13 14 The party moving for a transfer under § 1404(a) bears the burden of showing that transfer is appropriate. Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 472 F. Supp. 2d 1183, 1189 (S.D. 15 Cal. 2007). An action may be transferred to another court if: 16 (1) that court is one where the action might have been brought; 17 18 (2) the transfer serves the convenience of the parties; and 19 (3) the transfer will promote the interests of justice. 20 Gallo Winery v. F.&P. S.p.A., 899 F. Supp. 465, 466 (E.D. Cal. 21 1994). 22 factors a court may consider in determining whether a change of 23 E & J The Ninth Circuit has identified numerous additional venue should be granted pursuant to § 1404(a): 24 25 26 27 28 (1) the location where the relevant agreements were negotiated and executed, (2) the state that is most familiar with the governing law, (3) the plaintiff’s choice of forum, (4) the respective parties’ contacts with the forum, (5) the contacts relating to the plaintiff’s cause of action in the chosen forum, (6) the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums, (7) the availability of compulsory process 3 1 2 to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses, and (8) the ease of access to sources of proof. Jones v. GNC Franchising Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 3 2000). Plaintiffs’ choice of forum is generally given great weight. Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987); 4 5 6 DeFazio, 406 F. Supp. 2d at 1088. “Transfer is inappropriate 7 where it would merely shift rather than eliminate the 8 inconvenience.” Costco, 472 F. Supp. 2d. at 1195. 9 DISCUSSION 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant contests that this action 11 could have been brought in the Southern District of Alabama, but 12 they vigorously contest which forum is most convenient for the 13 parties and witnesses and which promotes the interests of justice. 14 I. Plaintiff's Choice of Forum and Convenience of the Parties 15 Defendant contends that Plaintiff's choice of the Northern 16 District of California is an example of forum shopping because 17 Plaintiff lives in the Eastern District of California, not in this 18 district.2 Because Plaintiff does not reside here, Defendant 19 contends that her choice of forum should get no deference. 20 Plaintiff responds that she filed this action in the San Francisco 21 superior court in the belief that Defendant had a facility in San 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Defendant actually contends that Plaintiff did not "choose" the Northern District of California because she filed suit in San Francisco superior court and Defendant removed it to the Northern District of California. Defendant contends that Plaintiff improperly filed her action in San Francisco because neither she nor Defendant reside there and none of the events giving rise to her causes of action took place there. Because the Court transfers this matter to the Southern District of Alabama, Defendant's argument is moot. 4 1 Francisco. 2 her action and, under the "home turf" rule, her choice should be 3 accorded substantial weight. 4 She argues that she chose California as the venue for Although a plaintiff's choice of forum is generally given 5 great weight, to discourage forum shopping, a non-resident 6 plaintiff's choice of venue is not given substantial deference. 7 Williams v. Bowman, 157 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 1107 (N.D. Cal. 2001). 8 Plaintiff's argument that she filed this action in San Francisco in the mistaken belief that Defendant has a facility 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 9 there is disingenuous given the ease of researching a company's 11 geographic location on the internet. 12 Plaintiff submits Defendant's website in support of her argument 13 that it is a large corporation with many resources. 14 she does not explain why she did not file this action in 15 Sacramento, the county in which she resides. 16 Plaintiff is not a resident of this forum, her choice is not 17 afforded substantial deference. 18 In fact, as discussed below, Furthermore, Given the fact that Plaintiff argues that litigating in Alabama would pose a 19 great inconvenience to her because she is a private individual, 20 with limited resources, who lives and works in Northern 21 California, with no connection to Alabama. 22 it would be difficult and costly for her to litigate this action 23 2,000 miles away in Alabama. Thus, she argues that She points out that, in contrast, 24 25 26 27 28 5 1 Defendant is a large corporation with facilities in California so 2 that it can easily litigate here.3 3 Defendant does not dispute that Plaintiff is an individual 4 with relatively little financial resources and that it is a large 5 corporation with relatively vast resources. 6 relative financial resources, Plaintiff would be greatly 7 inconvenienced by litigating her lawsuit 2000 miles away in 8 Alabama and Defendant would not be inconvenienced by litigating 9 here. Therefore, the convenience of the parties weighs against 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California Thus, based on transferring this action to Alabama. 11 II. Convenience of Witnesses 12 The convenience of witnesses is often the most important 13 factor in deciding whether to transfer an action. 14 Pacific Railroad Co., 2006 WL 193856, *2 (N.D. Cal.). 15 Bunker v. Union According to Plaintiff, because Defendant does not deny that 16 ammonia was released from its Alabama facility, the focus of the 17 litigation will be on the injuries that she sustained as a result 18 her exposure to ammonia. 19 this case will be her doctors who are in California and her co- 20 workers who were working with her in Alabama at the time she was Therefore, she argues, the witnesses in 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Defendant objects to Plaintiff's statement that it is a "very large corporation" with "enormous" facilities and "extensive on-going operations" in California as not supported by any evidence. However, Plaintiff submits the declaration of Brian Paget who refers to Defendant's website, which describes Defendant as the second-largest refrigerated warehouse and distribution company in the United States and as serving all of North America through the operation of thirty-six regional facilities. This evidence is sufficient to establish that Defendant is a large corporation, with two of its facilities located in California. Therefore, Defendant's objection is overruled. 6 1 exposed to ammonia, but who live in California. 2 that it would be a great inconvenience for these witnesses to fly 3 to Alabama to testify at a trial. She concludes 4 Although Defendant acknowledges that its Alabama facility 5 experienced an ammonia release, it points out that it does not 6 concede liability for the release. 7 Plaintiff can reach the issue of her injuries and damages, she 8 will have to prove that the release was caused by Defendant's 9 wrongdoing. Defendant argues that, before Defendant identifies many percipient witnesses with United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 material testimony who are within the jurisdiction of the Southern 11 District of Alabama, including Defendant's employees and employees 12 of public agencies such as the United States Coast Guard based in 13 Mobile County, the Mobile County Emergency Management Agency, the 14 Alabama Department of Environmental Management based in Mobile 15 County, the Mobile Fire Department and the Theodore Fire 16 Department. 17 public agencies may provide testimony regarding the emergency 18 response and investigation into the event. 19 medical personnel at local hospitals who may have knowledge about 20 the health effects of the event. 21 Byrum, Deputy Inspector with the State of Alabama Department of 22 Labor, who may provide testimony regarding machinery inspections 23 at Defendant's Theodore facility. Defendant indicates that the employees of these Defendant identifies Defendant also identifies Marvin 24 Defendant points out that most of the non-party witnesses 25 with key testimony are subject to subpoena within the Southern 26 District of Alabama, but are not subject to process in the 27 Northern District of California. Defendant asserts that it, as 28 7 1 well as Plaintiff, would be severely prejudiced if they could not 2 compel material witnesses to testify at trial. 3 It is clear that most, if not all, of the percipient 4 witnesses whose testimony will be essential for the determination 5 of Defendant's liability are located in Alabama, are subject to 6 the subpoena power of the district court in the Southern District 7 of Alabama and are not subject to subpoena in the Northern 8 District of California. 9 Based on the foregoing, the factor of convenience of United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 witnesses weighs heavily in favor of transfer to the Southern 11 District of Alabama. 12 III. Ease of Access to Sources of Proof 13 In keeping with her theory that the extent of her injuries is 14 the only issue that will be litigated, Plaintiff argues that her 15 medical records, located in Sacramento, will be more readily 16 accessible in this forum. 17 out, immovable evidence such as Defendant's facility and the 18 machinery within it are located in the Southern District of 19 Alabama. 20 IV. Interests of the Forum 21 However, as Defendant correctly points Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of transfer. There is strong public interest in the local adjudication of 22 local controversies. 23 Litig., 850 F. Supp. 188, 195 (E.D.N.Y. 1994). 24 District of California has minimal interest in litigating this 25 action. 26 of the events giving rise to this litigation occurred here. 27 the other hand, as shown by the declaration of Alexandra Ozols, 28 the ammonia discharge was a significant event to the regulating In re Eastern Dist. Repetitive Stress Injury The Northern Neither of the parties resides in this district and none 8 On 1 bodies that are responsible for worker safety and environmental 2 protection in Alabama and, most likely, to the citizens of 3 Alabama. 4 interest in this event which took place within its jurisdiction, 5 which was allegedly caused by one of its residents, and which 6 could cause harm to its residents. 7 The Southern District of Alabama has a substantial For all these reasons, this factor weighs heavily in favor of 8 transfer. 9 V. Remaining Factors United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Plaintiff argues that, because her claims are based on 11 California state law, this forum in more familiar with the law 12 that will govern this case. 13 choice of law affirmative defense in its Answer and that issue has 14 not yet been decided. 15 Plaintiff is a citizen of California, the events giving rise to 16 the lawsuit occurred in Alabama and, therefore, it is arguable 17 that Alabama law could apply. 18 the burden of establishing that transfer is appropriate, the Court 19 will assume, without deciding, that California law applies. 20 Therefore, this factor weighs against transfer. 21 Defendant argues that it has raised a Defendant points out that, even though However, because Defendant bears Plaintiff argues that relative docket congestion weighs in 22 favor of litigating in this forum because the median time from 23 filing a complaint to disposition of civil cases for 2011 was 8.4 24 months in the Southern District of Alabama and only eight months 25 in this district. 26 the twelve months ending on September 30, 2011, the time from 27 filing a lawsuit to trial was 16.8 months in the Southern District 28 of Alabama and 33.4 months in this district. However, as pointed out by Defendant, during 9 As of September 30, 1 2011, there were twenty-six civil cases over three years old in 2 the Southern District of Alabama, whereas there were 516 cases 3 over three years old in the Northern District of California. 4 These statistics show that, if a trial is unnecessary, a case 5 may be resolved a few weeks faster in the Northern District of 6 California; however, if a trial is necessary, resolution will take 7 much longer in the Northern District of California. 8 weighs slightly in favor of transfer. 9 This factor Without citing authority, Plaintiff argues that the timing of United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Defendant's motion to transfer weighs in favor of litigating the 11 action in California because Defendant filed its motion two weeks 12 after it filed its answer. 13 Defendant filed its motion to transfer only three weeks after it 14 removed the case from state court and the case is in the earliest 15 stages. 16 conference has been held. 17 does not support keeping the litigation in this district. 18 This argument is without merit. No discovery has taken place and no case management The timing of the motion to transfer Finally, Defendant points out that transfer would further 19 judicial economy because there are two other actions arising from 20 the same events that have been filed in the Southern District of 21 Alabama. 22 VI. Balancing of Factors 23 Only Plaintiff's convenience and the familiarity of this 24 district with California law weigh against transfer. 25 above, Plaintiff's choice of forum merits no deference. 26 convenience of witnesses, the availability of compulsory process 27 to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses, the ease of 28 access to sources of proof, the interests of the forum and 10 As noted The 1 judicial economy all weigh in favor of transfer. 2 significantly in favor of transfer is the fact that neither party 3 has any relevant contact with this district and none of the events 4 giving rise to Plaintiff's causes of action occurred here. 5 6 7 Weighing For these reasons, the material factors weigh in favor of transferring this case to the Southern District of Alabama. Plaintiff asks that, if the Court is inclined to transfer the 8 case, the ruling be stayed to allow the parties to proceed with 9 initial disclosures and discovery to determine how many witnesses United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 from Alabama need to be deposed. 11 ruling on this motion. 12 addition to the convenience of the witnesses weigh in favor of 13 transfer. 14 The Court declines to stay As discussed above, many factors in Plaintiff also requests that the Court condition transfer on 15 Defendant's waiver of all applicable statutes of limitations. 16 However, this is not necessary because the statute of limitations 17 for this type of personal injury action in Alabama is two years, 18 as it is in California. 19 actions for any injury to the person or rights of another not 20 arising from contract and not specifically enumerated in this 21 section must be brought within two years."); Cal. Civ. Pro. Code 22 § 340.8 (two-year statute of limitations for action for injury 23 based upon exposure to hazardous material or toxic substance). 24 Finally, Plaintiff requests that the Court transfer this case to 25 the Eastern District of California, where she resides. 26 Plaintiff has not filed a noticed motion in support of transfer; a 27 one sentence request at the end of her opposition is insufficient 28 to put this issue before the Court. See Ala. Code, Title 6, § 6-2-38(l) ("All 11 However, 1 2 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion to transfer is 3 granted. 4 United States District Court for the Southern District Alabama. The Court orders the instant case transferred to the 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 9 Dated: 5/16/2012 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
