Bride v. Snap Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: August 9, 2021
• Docket: 3:21-cv-03473
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KRISTIN BRIDE, et al., Case No. 21-cv-03473-JD

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE MOTION TO TRANSFER v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 31 10 SNAP INC., et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 In this consumer class action, the Estate of Carson Bride, his mother Kristin Bride, and the 14 Tyler Clementi Foundation have sued three technology companies, Snap, Inc. (which owns the 15 Snapchat app), YOLO Technologies, Inc. (which owns YOLO, an in-app extension for Snapchat), 16 and LightSpace, Inc. (which owns LMK, another Snapchat extension), for claims under Oregon, 17 New York, and California state law. See Dkt. No. 1. The claims arise out of the tragic suicides of 18 Carson Bride and Tyler Clementi, teenage boys who are alleged to have suffered harassment and 19 cyberbullying on Snapchat and the YOLO and LMK extensions. Id. ¶¶ 29, 65-67. Plaintiffs 20 contend that Snap, YOLO, and LightSpace failed to implement their anti-bullying and harassment 21 policies, and to safeguard teens from cyberbullying despite promising to do so. Id. ¶ 22. 22 Defendants have requested a transfer to the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1404, on the grounds that the case could have been brought there originally, and that transfer is 24 warranted in the interest of convenience and fairness. See Dkt. No. 31. The motion is suitable for 25 decision without oral argument, see Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). The parties’ familiarity with the 26 record is assumed, and a transfer is granted. 27 1 Under Section 1404(a), “[f]or the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest 2 of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it 3 might have been brought.” The Court has broad discretion in ruling on a motion to transfer. 4 Marshall v. Monster Beverage Corp., No. 14-CV-02203-JD, 2014 WL 3870290, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 5 Aug. 6, 2014) (citing Vu v. Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc., 602 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1155 (N.D. Cal. 6 2009)). The “moving party must show that venue is proper in both the transferor and transferee 7 districts.” Id. After that, the traditional Section 1404 factors are applied “to evaluate whether a 8 transfer of venue would be more convenient to the parties and the witnesses and would promote 9 the interests of justice: (1) plaintiffs’ choice of forum, (2) convenience of the parties, (3) 10 convenience of the witnesses, (4) ease of access to the evidence, (5) familiarity of each forum with 11 the applicable law, (6) feasibility of consolidation with other claims, (7) any local interest in the 12 controversy, and (8) the relative court congestion and time of trial in each forum.” Id. at *2 13 (internal quotation omitted). 14 These factors weigh in favor of a transfer to the Central District. Plaintiffs do not dispute 15 that this case could have been brought in the Central District. See Dkt. No. 37 at 3-4. Under 28 16 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1) and (c)(3), venue is proper in “a judicial district in which any defendant 17 resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located,” and foreign 18 defendants are “disregarded in determining where the action may be brought.” For a corporate 19 entity defendant, venue is proper “in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the 20 court’s personal jurisdiction,” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2), meaning where it is incorporated and 21 headquartered. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 137 (2014). Snap and YOLO are 22 headquartered in Santa Monica and Los Angeles, respectively, Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 41, 42, and so reside 23 in the Central District. LightSpace is incorporated in the Cayman Islands. Id. ¶ 43. Although it is 24 not crystal clear whether it maintains an office in Palo Alto (within the Northern District of 25 California), id., or in China, Dkt. No. 31-1 (Hu Decl.) ¶ 4, the Court need not resolve this question 26 because venue is proper in the Central District either way. If LightSpace is deemed a resident of 27 California, venue is proper in the Central District because Snap and YOLO reside there, and all 1 LightSpace’s residence is irrelevant for venue purposes. See 28 U.S.C. 1391(c)(3). 2 Defendants have demonstrated that a transfer to the Central District is in the interest of 3 || justice. Plaintiffs are residents of Oregon and New York, and seek to certify a nationwide class 4 along with Oregon and New York subclasses. Dkt. No. 1 {[f] 26-28. As such, their choice of 5 forum is “given less weight in class action cases and in cases where a plaintiff does not reside in 6 the forum.” Marshall, 2014 WL 3870290, at *2. In addition, none of the events alleged in the 7 || complaint occurred in this District, and plaintiffs filed here solely on the ground that defendants 8 do business here generally, see Dkt. No. 1 {| 48, which further erodes any deference that might 9 otherwise be afforded to plaintiffs’ decision to file here. 10 Overall, the Central District will be a more convenient forum for the parties and witnesses. 11 Snap and YOLO are headquartered there, and have demonstrated through declarations that most of 12 || their employees with knowledge relevant to the case, who may serve as trial witnesses, are located 5 13 in the Central District. See Dkt. Nos. 31-1, 31-2, 31-3. Plaintiffs are out-of-state residents for 14 || whom the difference of litigating in San Francisco or Los Angeles is a wash. They also did not 3 15 identify any non-party witnesses that might tilt the balance to this District. The convenience of a 16 || witnesses is “often considered to be the most important factor in deciding transfer questions” and, 3 17 as in Marshall, this factor “is clearly better served by litigating this dispute in the Central District 18 || because the vast majority of [witnesses] are located there.” Marshall, 2014 WL 3870290, at *3. 19 Plaintiffs have not adduced any other good reason not to send this case to the Central 20 || District. Consequently, a transfer is granted. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: August 9, 2021 23 JAMES/PONATO- United Btates District Judge 25 26 27 28