Integrity Financial Corp v. Riboli

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: March 21, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00039
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 AT SEATTLE

5 INTEGRITY FINANCIAL CORP., Case No. C22-00039-RSM

6 Plaintiff, ORDER TRANSFERRING VENUE

7 v. 8 CHRISTOPHER RIBOLI, individually, 9 JAMES CONOLE, individually, and ROOT FINANCIAL PARTNERS, a California 10 Corporation, 11 Defendants. 12 13 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. #23. 14 Defendants request, in the alternative, transfer of this case to the Central District of California. 15 16 Id. at 26–27. The Court has determined that oral argument is unnecessary. 17 This case was filed in this District on January 13, 2022. Dkt. #1. On February 14, 18 Defendant Riboli filed a parallel action against Plaintiff Integrity Financial Corporation (“IFC”) 19 in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Dkt. #26-14. The instant Motion was filed in this case 20 on February 24. Dkt. #23. 21 22 According to the Complaint, IFC is incorporated under the laws of Washington with 23 offices in Washington, California, Florida, Oregon, and Montana. Dkt. #1 at ¶¶ 22–23. 24 Defendant Riboli is a California resident who lived and worked for IFC in California. Id. at ¶ 25 24. The remainder of the Defendants are residents of California. Id. at ¶¶ 25–26. IFC believes 26 this venue is proper “because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the 27 28 claims occurred in Washington, and by signing IFC’s employee handbook and entering into a confidentiality agreement with IFC, Defendant Riboli expressly consented to the personal 1 2 jurisdiction of Washington state and federal courts.” Id. at ¶ 28. At issue in Defendant Riboli’s 3 Motion to Dismiss is personal jurisdiction and the unenforceability of IFC’s noncompete clause 4 on a California employee under California law. See Dkt. #23. 5 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404, this Court has discretion to transfer this case in the interests of 6 convenience and justice to another district in which venue would be proper. See Jones v. GNC 7 8 Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000). Specifically, Section 1404(a) states: 9 For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division 10 where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all 11 parties have consented.

12 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The purpose of this statute is to “prevent the waste of time, energy, and 13 money and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and 14 expense.” Pedigo Prods., Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc., No. 3:12-CV-05502-BHS, 15 16 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12690, 2013 WL 364814, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 30, 2013) (quoting 17 Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616, 84 S. Ct. 805, 11 L. Ed. 2d 945 (1964)). 18 In the Ninth Circuit, district courts typically apply a nine-factor balancing test to 19 determine whether to transfer a case under § 1404(a), examining: “(1) the location where the 20 relevant agreements were negotiated and executed, (2) the state that is most familiar with the 21 22 governing law, (3) the plaintiff’s choice of forum, (4) the respective parties’ contacts with the 23 forum, (5) the contacts relating to the plaintiff’s cause of action in the chosen forum, (6) the 24 differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums, (7) the availability of compulsory 25 process to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses, [] (8) the ease of access to 26 sources of proof, and (9) the public policy considerations of the forum state.” Jones, 211 F.3d 27 28 at 498-99. The Court has reviewed the briefing and related documents for the instant Motion. 1 2 Apparently, IFC makes the above venue assertion based on an unsigned “Employment, 3 Confidential Information and Invention Assignment Agreement” that includes a Washington 4 choice of law and forum selection clause. See Dkt. #22-7 at 94–96. This Agreement exhibit 5 has a blank signature line. Not only has IFC been unable to produce a copy of this agreement 6 with Mr. Riboli’s signature, he denies executing it. Riboli Decl., ¶ 27. Even if he had executed 7 8 it, such might be unenforceable under California law. See Dkt. #23 at 11 n.1. 9 Because Defendant Riboli lived and worked for IFC in California, the relevant 10 agreement was negotiated and executed, if at all, in California. A California district court will 11 be more familiar with the governing law on the above threshold issues. Plaintiff IFC has 12 13 chosen this district to file its Complaint. However, the Court is convinced that all parties have 14 more contacts with California, and that is where the witnesses and evidence are located. The 15 Court is convinced that the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California is a proper 16 venue. The Court has considered all of the factors above and finds that a transfer is warranted 17 in the interest of justice. 18 19 Having reviewed the relevant pleadings and the remainder of the record, the Court 20 hereby FINDS and ORDERS that Defendants’ Motion seeking transfer of venue in the 21 alternative, Dkt. #23, is GRANTED. This matter is hereby TRANSFERRED to the United 22 States District Court for the Central District of California for all further proceedings. 23 DATED this 21st day of March, 2022. 24 25 A 26 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 27 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28