Ard v. Boyd ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 San Francisco Division 11 MARLIN ARD, Case No. 22-cv-03764-LB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 v. 14 HILARY BOYD, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Marlin Ard, an Oregon-based attorney, sued various Oregon-based defendants over their 18 allegedly biased handling of an Oregon state-court case in which Mr. Ard represented the 19 plaintiff.1 In connection with that case, the Oregon Supreme Court suspended Mr. Ard from the 20 practice of law for one year, effective February 28, 2022.2 (The Oregon Supreme Court justices 21 are defendants in this case.) In December 2020, Mr. Ard sued some of the defendants about the 22 same events in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.3 In this case, he 23 additionally complains of the District of Oregon’s alleged prejudice towards him, and asserts that 24 25 1 Compl. – ECF No. 1; Mutual Release, Ex. 1 to id. – ECF No. 1-2 (setting forth a settlement of the 26 Oregon state-court case). Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (ECF); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents. 27 2 Opinion, Ex. 2 to Compl. – ECF No. 1-3 at 1. 1 venue is proper in this court because of that prejudice.4 The court orders the plaintiff to show 2 cause why his case should not be transferred to the District of Oregon for lack of proper venue. 3 A case may be brought in (1) “a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all 4 defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located,” (2) “a judicial district in 5 which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred,” or (3) “if 6 there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any 7 judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect 8 to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 9 If venue is improper, the court may either dismiss the case without prejudice, or, if it is in the 10 “interest of justice,” transfer the case “to any district or division in which it could have been 11 brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); In re Hall, Bayoutree Assocs., Ltd., 939 F.2d 802, 804 (9th Cir. 12 1991) (dismissal must be without prejudice). Ordinarily, the interest of justice requires transferring 13 the case to the proper venue rather than dismissing the case. Baeta v. Sonchik, 273 F.3d 1261, 14 1264–65 (9th Cir. 2001). In considering whether to transfer venue, factors that the court may 15 consider include: 16 (1) [The] plaintiffs’ choice of forum, (2) convenience of the parties, (3) convenience of the witnesses, (4) ease of access to the evidence, (5) familiarity of 17 each forum with the applicable law, (6) feasibility of consolidation with other 18 claims, (7) any local interest in the controversy, and (8) the relative court congestion and time to trial in each forum. 19 20 Lapachet v. Cal. Forensic Med. Grp., Inc., No. 16-cv-06959-HSG, 2017 WL 3917209, at *2 (N.D. 21 Cal. Sept. 7, 2017) (collecting cases); see Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498–99 22 (9th Cir. 2000) (identifying factors). 23 This list of factors is not exhaustive, and some factors have more weight or less depending on 24 the context. Lapachet, 2017 WL 3917209, at *2. For example, generally the court affords the 25 plaintiff’s choice of forum great weight. Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987). But 26 when judging the weight to be given to the plaintiff’s choice of forum, consideration must be 27 ] given to the respective parties’ contact with the chosen forum. /d. “If the operative facts have not 2 || occurred within the forum and the forum has no interest in the parties or subject matter,” the 3 || plaintiffs choice “is entitled to only minimal consideration.” Jd. 4 It does not appear that there is venue in the Northern District of California. First, the parties 5 are all residents of Oregon.” Second, the relevant events appear to have all taken place in Oregon.° 6 || Third, Mr. Ard’s allegations of prejudice in the District of Oregon do not give rise to venue in the 7 || Northern District of California. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Thus, Mr. Ard is ordered to show cause why 8 || his case should not be transferred to the District of Oregon for lack of proper venue. He must do 9 || so in writing, in no more than five pages, by September 16, 2022. Alternatively, he may, by the 10 || same date, (1) file a statement of non-opposition to the transfer or (2) dismiss the case without 11 prejudice by filing a one-page notice of voluntary dismissal. a (12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: September 2, 2022 LAE ON LAUREL BEELER 15 United States Magistrate Judge 16 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 s Id. at 6-9 (44 1-2). 28 || ° Td. at 4-6.