Lee Drone v. Ryan D. Nilsestuen, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LEE DRONE, Case No. 25-cv-09580-EKL

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING-IN-PART AND 9 v. TRANSFERRING-IN-PART FOR FORUM NON CONVENIENS 10 RYAN D. NILSESTUEN, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 11, 13, 22, 36 Defendants. 11

12 On April 20, 2026, the Court issued a sua sponte order for supplemental briefs from the 13 parties regarding whether to transfer this lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Western District 14 of Wisconsin under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Plaintiff Lee Drone and Defendant Hon. Ryan D. 15 Nilsestuen filed briefs on whether transfer is appropriate. See ECF Nos. 51-52. Defendants Paula 16 Goodman, Joseph J. Klein, and Allen S. Porter did not file briefs on this issue.1 The Court 17 DISMISSES-IN-PART the claims for damages against Judge Nilsestuen because transfer would 18 be futile. The Court TRANSFERS the remaining claims because a related case by Drone against 19 many of the same Defendants is pending in the Western District of Wisconsin. This Order 20 assumes the reader’s familiarity with the facts, applicable legal standard, and arguments made by 21 the parties. 22 Change of Venue: “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, 23 a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have 24 been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In deciding whether transfer is in the interest of justice, 25 courts consider: “(1) plaintiff[’s] choice of forum, (2) convenience of the parties, (3) convenience 26 of the witnesses, (4) ease of access to the evidence, (5) familiarity of each forum with the 27 1 applicable law, (6) feasibility of consolidation with other claims, (7) any local interest in the 2 controversy, and (8) the relative court congestion and time of trial in each forum.” Vu v. Ortho- 3 McNeil Pharm., Inc., 602 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1156 (N.D. Cal. 2009). Additionally, courts may 4 consider whether “transfer would be futile because the case would be dismissed even after 5 transfer.” Nelson-Devlin v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 14-cv-02811-KJM–EFB, 2015 WL 5436700, at 6 *4 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 15, 2015). 7 As an initial matter, the Court finds that the case might have been brought in the Western 8 District of Wisconsin. Venue is proper in “a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all 9 defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). 10 Goodman resides in Madison, Wisconsin. Compl. ¶ 18. Porter and Klein are attorneys with 11 principal offices in Madison, Wisconsin, indicating that each resides in the state. Id. ¶¶ 19-20. 12 And Judge Nilsestuen serves on the Dane County Circuit Court, indicating that he, too, resides in 13 Wisconsin. Id. ¶ 17. Because each Defendant is a resident of Wisconsin, and at least Goodman 14 resides in Madison, Wisconsin, which is in the Western District, venue is proper in the Western 15 District of Wisconsin under Section 1391(b)(1) and the case might have been brought there. 16 Next, the Court considers whether transfer is in the interest of justice. The first factor 17 (Plaintiff’s choice of forum) at most weighs only slightly against transfer. “Although Plaintiff’s 18 choice of forum is generally given deference, ‘[i]f the operative facts have not occurred within the 19 forum of original selection and that forum has no particular interest in the parties or the subject 20 matter, the plaintiff’s choice is entitled only to minimal consideration.’” O’Keefe v. Pick Five 21 Imports, No. 17-cv-08452-SVW-AFM, 2018 WL 4944997, at *4 (C.D. Cal. June 20, 2018) 22 (quoting Pac. Car & Foundry Co., 403 F.2d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 1968)). Here, the operative facts 23 occurred exclusively in Wisconsin, not California. See Compl. ¶¶ 24-91. However, the Northern 24 District of California retains a limited interest because Drone, one of the parties, resides within the 25 District. Id. ¶ 16; see also Pl.’s Suppl. Br. at 1, ECF No. 52 (“Drone Br.”). 26 The second (convenience of the parties), third (convenience of the witnesses), fourth (ease 27 of access to the evidence), and fifth (familiarity of each forum with the applicable law) factors are 1 Drone argues that the third and fourth factors weigh against transfer because individuals with 2 knowledge of his alleged injuries and documentary evidence in his possession are in California. 3 See id. But because the events giving rise to this lawsuit concern Wisconsin state court 4 proceedings, witnesses and evidence are located in Wisconsin too. Thus, the third and fourth 5 factors are neutral. 6 The sixth factor (feasibility of consolidation with other claims) weighs strongly in favor of 7 transfer. “The feasibility of consolidation is a significant factor in a transfer decision[] . . . [and] 8 even the pendency of an action in another district is important because of the positive effects it 9 might have in possible consolidation of discovery and convenience to witnesses and parties.” A. J. 10 Indus., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 503 F.2d 384, 389 (9th Cir. 1974). The Court recently transferred 11 Drone v. Bear, No. 25-cv-09583, to the Western District of Wisconsin because venue was 12 improper in this District. Drone v. Bear, No. 25-cv-09583, 2026 WL 1531740 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 13 2026) (“Bear action”). The Bear action is a related case that involves the same plaintiff, many of 14 the same Defendants, and the same real property, and alleges similar claims for constitutional 15 violations based on a state court action overseen by Judge Nilsestuen. See ECF No. 16 (relating 16 cases). Contrary to Drone’s assertion that there would be no “meaningful efficiency gains” from 17 transferring the case, Drone Br. at 4, the court in the Western District of Wisconsin would “have 18 the ability to relate and coordinate the two cases, thereby streamlining the litigation,” Bite Tech, 19 Inc. v. X2 Impact, Inc., No. C-12-5888 EMC, 2013 WL 871926, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2013); 20 Hawkins v. Gerber Prods. Co., 924 F. Supp. 2d 1208, 1214 (S.D. Cal. 2013) (transferring case 21 “due to the possible consolidation of discovery and the conservation of time, energy and money, 22 and the avoidance of the possibility of inconsistent judgments”). Thus, because the Bear action is 23 pending in the Western District of Wisconsin, this factor “weighs strongly in favor of transfer.” 24 Bite Tech, Inc., 2013 WL 871926, at *6; see also Ecological Rts. Found. v. EPA, No. 19-cv- 25 04242-RS, 2019 WL 5295124, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2019) (transferring case when “the factual 26 and legal overlap between the cases [was] significant” even though the “cases d[id] not make 27 exactly the same claims or allege exactly the same facts”); Mayer v. Aetna, Inc., No. CV 14- 1 based on similarities between the parties, claims, theories of liability, and relief being sought); 2 ThermoLife Int’l LLC v. NeoGenis Labs Inc., No. CV-18-02980-PHX-DWL, 2021 WL 3290532, 3 at *6 (D. Ariz. Aug. 2, 2021) (“In general, cases should be transferred to districts where related 4 actions are pending.” (citation modified)). 5 The seventh factor (local interest in the controversy) also weighs in favor of transfer. The 6 complaint alleges that a Wisconsin state judge and litigants in Wisconsin state court violated 7 Drone’s constitutional rights. See Compl.; see also Drone Br. at 4 (acknowledging that 8 “Wisconsin has a connection because the underlying proceedings occurred there”). It does not, 9 however, allege that any acts occurred in California other than that Drone received correspondence 10 and read court orders there. See Compl. ¶¶ 16, 45-46, 156. Thus, the Western District of 11 Wisconsin has a “stronger [interest] because the events at issue took place there.” Vu, 602 F. 12 Supp. 2d at 1157. Drone disagrees, arguing that “California has a direct interest in this dispute 13 because it involves alleged constitutional injuries to a California domiciliary.” Drone Br. at 3. 14 But the location of the injury, even assuming it is in California, does not outweigh the localized 15 interest in adjudicating whether wrongdoing occurred in Wisconsin state court. See Williams v. 16 Bowman, 157 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 1109-10 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (finding that the venue where “the 17 alleged wrong occurred” had a greater interest than the venue where the parties resided); Hawkins, 18 924 F. Supp. 2d at 1216-17 (finding that this factor favored transfer to the venue where the “crux” 19 of the underlying events occurred). 20 Finally, there is no evidence before the Court concerning the eighth factor (relative 21 congestion in each court), so it is neutral. Thus, overall, the balance of the factors favor transfer 22 because the sixth factor weighs heavily toward transfer, the seventh factor favors transfer, and no 23 other factor or combination of factors offsets them. 24 Futility of Transferring Claims Barred by Judicial Immunity: The entire case, however, 25 is not suitable for transfer because Judge Nilsestuen is immune from suit for damages. See Harris 26 v. U.S. Att’y Gen., No. 19-cv-01397-AG-JDE, 2019 WL 4180015, at *6 (C.D. Cal. June 21, 2019) 27 (finding that it is not “in the interest of justice to transfer . . . claims against . . . defendants who 1 damage actions for judicial acts taken within the jurisdiction of their courts.” Ashelman v. Pope, 2 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986). This immunity is “overcome in only two sets of 3 circumstances.” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991). First, a “judge lacks immunity where he 4 acts in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.” Ashelman, 793 F.2d at 1075 (citation modified). “To 5 determine if the judge acted with jurisdiction, courts focus on whether the judge was acting clearly 6 beyond the scope of subject matter jurisdiction in contrast to personal jurisdiction.” Id. at 1076. 7 Here, it is undisputed that Judge Nilsestuen had subject matter jurisdiction. Instead, the complaint 8 alleges that Judge Nilsestuen “proceeded without lawful service,” which challenges personal 9 jurisdiction over Drone. Compl. ¶ 95; see also Opp. at 3, ECF No. 41. This allegation is not a 10 basis for setting aside judicial immunity. 11 Second, a judge lacks immunity if he “performs an act that is not ‘judicial’ in nature.” 12 Ashelman, 793 F.2d at 1075 (citation modified). To determine whether an act is judicial in nature, 13 courts consider “whether (1) the precise act is a normal judicial function; (2) the events occurred 14 in the judge’s chambers; (3) the controversy centered around a case then pending before the judge; 15 and (4) the events at issue arose directly and immediately out of a confrontation with the judge in 16 his or her official capacity.” Id. at 1075-76; see also Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 17 1133 (9th Cir. 2001). Drone alleges that Judge Nilsestuen engaged in “[s]pecific acts 18 demonstrating the absence of jurisdiction and the non-judicial character of the conduct,” but each 19 act of alleged wrongdoing was a normal judicial function that occurred in the course of presiding 20 over a state civil harassment lawsuit. See Compl. ¶ 96 (alleging that reopening a case that had 21 been dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, issuing hearing notices, deciding whether service 22 was adequate, finding waiver of personal jurisdiction, researching case law, and issuing orders 23 were non-judicial acts). Thus, because the acts in question were all judicial in nature, they are 24 subject to judicial immunity. Accordingly, transferring the claims for damages against Judge 25 Nilsestuen would be futile because they are barred by judicial immunity.2 26

27 2 Because judicial immunity bars only suits for damages, see Ashelman, 793 F.2d at 1075, the ] In sum, the claims for damages against Judge Nilsestuen are DISMISSED without leave to 2 amend. The Court TRANSFERS the rest of the claims to the U.S. District Court for the Western 3 District of Wisconsin. The pending motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 11, 13, 22) are terminated as 4 || moot without prejudice to refiling in the Western District of Wisconsin. The Clerk is instructed to 5 || transfer and close the case. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: June 5, 2026 8 9 umi K. Lee 10 United States District Judge 1] a 12

13 14

15 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28