Okhandiar v. Smith ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 KRISHNA OKHANDIAR and REMILIA Case No.: 2:23-cv-01409-APG-EJY CORPORATION LLC, 4 Order Transferring Case Plaintiff 5 [ECF No. 9] v. 6 HENRY SMITH, MAXWELL ROUX, and 7 JOHN DUFF, III, 8 Defendants 9 The defendants move to dismiss or transfer, arguing that this court lacks personal 10 jurisdiction over them and is an improper venue. In the alternative, the defendants request a 11 transfer to the District of Delaware. The plaintiffs respond by agreeing to the case being 12 transferred to the District of Delaware. 13 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a district court may dismiss a case that is filed in an improper 14 venue, or the court may, “in the interest of justice,” transfer the case to any district “in which it 15 could have been brought.” Section 1406(a)’s language “is amply broad enough to authorize the 16 transfer of cases, however wrong the plaintiff may have been in filing his case as to venue, 17 whether the court in which it was filed had personal jurisdiction over the defendants or not.” 18 Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463, 466 (1962). Factors to consider in determining whether 19 transfer is in the interest of justice include “whether the statute of limitations would otherwise 20 run, the convenience of parties and witnesses, and whether efficient and expeditious 21 administration of justice would be furthered.” Sherar v. Harless, 561 F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir. 22 1977). “Normally transfer will be in the interest of justice because normally dismissal of an 23 action that could be brought elsewhere is ‘time-consuming and justice-defeating.’” Miller v. 1} Hambrick, 905 F.2d 259, 262 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Goldlawr, Inc., 369 U.S. at 467 and evaluating similar “interest of justice” language in another transfer statute). 3 The parties agree that this case could have been brought in the District of Delaware. The convenience of the witnesses and parties favors transfer given that the defendants have filed an action against the plaintiffs in Delaware that has been removed to the District of Delaware. As 6|| the parties are already litigating a case in that district that involves these same parties! and issues, transfer is in the interest of justice. Although the defendants suggest that dismissal is more 8|| efficient, a simple stipulation to consolidate the two actions upon transfer should take little time, 9} effort, or resources on the part of the parties or the Delaware court. 10 I THEREFORE ORDER that the defendants’ motion to dismiss or alternatively to transfer (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED in part. This case is transferred to the District of Delaware for all further proceedings. 13 DATED this 12th day of February, 2024. 14 OIER-c— 1S ANDREW P.GORDON. 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ' There are additional parties in the Delaware action.