1 2 FILED IN THE 3 U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 Mar 21, 2023 5 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 NATIONAL CENTER FOR PUBILC 10 POLICY RESEARCH, No. 2:22-CV-00267-SAB 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 HOWARD SCHULTZ, et al., CHANGE VENUE 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff initiated this action in Spokane County Superior Court, and 17 Defendants removed it to the Eastern District of Washington on November 7, 18 2022. Plaintiff is a Delaware non-profit corporation, with its principal place of 19 business in Washington, D.C. None of the Defendants are alleged to be residents of 20 Delaware or Washington, D.C. On August 22, 2022, Plaintiff commenced this 21 action in the Spokane County Superior Court. On October 17, 2022, Defendants 22 removed the state action to the Eastern District. Plaintiffs are suing Starbucks and 23 various Directors and Officers of Starbucks, seeking a declaratory judgment that 24 certain policies of Starbucks violate 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII, and various state 25 laws that prohibit discrimination; that Starbuck’s Directors and Officers breached 26 their fiduciary obligations and violated Wash. Rev. Code § 7.24.010. Plaintiffs are 27 seeking injunctive relief. 28 1 Defendants move to transfer this action to the United States District Court 2 for the Western District of Washington pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). 3 Defendants argue this action should be transferred to the Western District of 4 Washington because this is where Starbucks is headquartered, where the key 5 operative facts took place, and where many of Defendants, potential witnesses, and 6 vital documents are located. Defendants assert the transfer to the Western District 7 would facilitate the most convenient, cost-effective, and efficient method of 8 addressing the issues presented in this case. 9 Upon reviewing the briefing and the relevant caselaw, the Court denies 10 Defendants’ Motion to Change Venue to the Western District of Washington. 11 12 Legal Standard 13 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides that “for the convenience of the parties and 14 witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to 15 any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or 16 division to which all parties have consented.” The purpose of the section is to 17 “prevent the waste of time, energy, and money, and to protect litigants, witnesses, 18 and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense.” Van Dusen v. 19 Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964) (internal quotation marks omitted). Section 20 1404(a) effectively codified the doctrine of forum non conveniens but allows for 21 the direct transfer from one federal forum to another, proper forum instead of 22 dismissal of the action. Atl. Marine Construction Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for the 23 Western Dist. of Texas, 571 U.S. 49, 60 (2013). 24 For the purposes of § 1404, a case “might have been brought” in another 25 forum if that forum has both subject-matter and personal jurisdiction over the case 26 and parties and would be a proper venue under Section 1391(b). Hoffman v. Blaski, 27 363 U.S. 335, 344 (1960). Once this element is satisfied, district courts apply an 28 eight-factor balancing test to evaluate whether convenience, fairness, and the 1 interests of justice support transfer. Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 2 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000). District courts must analyze whether: (1) the location 3 where the relevant agreements were negotiated and executed; (2) the state that is 4 most familiar with the governing law; (3) plaintiff’s choice of forum; (4) the 5 respective parties’ contacts with the forum; (5) the contacts relating to plaintiff’s 6 cause of action in the chose forum; (6) the differences in the costs of litigation in 7 the two forums; (7) the availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of 8 unwilling non-party witnesses, and; (8) the ease of access to sources of proof. 9 Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000). A court 10 may consider the location where relevant agreements were negotiated and 11 executed, the respective parties’ contacts with the forum, and the contacts relating 12 to the plaintiff’s cause of action in the chosen form. Id. 13 In addition to the Jones factors, a plaintiff’s choice of forum is generally due 14 substantial deference. Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987). The 15 defendant bears the burden of establishing that transfer is appropriate. Piper 16 Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 255-56 (1981). The defendant must make a 17 strong showing that inconvenience and the interests of justice warrant upsetting a 18 plaintiff’s choice of forum. Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 19 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). The decision to transfer, however, is ultimately left 20 to the district court’s discretion based on an “individualized, case-by-case 21 consideration of convenience and fairness.” Stewart Org, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 22 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (quoting Van Dusen 376 U.S. at 622). In this District, “great 23 weight is generally accorded plaintiff’s choice of forum unless the operative facts 24 have not occurred within the forum and the forum has no interest in the parties or 25 subject matter.” Peterson v. Nat’l Sec. Techs., LLC, No.12-CV-5025-TOR, 2012 26 WL 3264952, at *3 (E.D. Wash. Aug. 9, 2012). 27 // 28 // 1 Analysis 2 Under Section 1404(a), the Western District is one where the case “might 3 have been brought”, but the balancing Jones factors do not weigh in favor of 4 Defendants’ motion to transfer this case to the Western District. Of the eight 5 factors considering convenience, fairness, and the interest of justice outlined in 6 Jones, five are neutral as to whether the case is litigated in either district, and three 7 factors favor maintaining this action in the Eastern District of Washington 8 Specifically, Plaintiff’s choice of forum, the respective parties’ contacts with the 9 forum, and those contacts relating to Plaintiff’s cause of action in this chosen 10 forum weigh in favor of continuing this matter in the Eastern District. 11 Factors one, two, six, seven, and eight outlined in Jones (and listed in order 12 above) are neutral as to whether the Court should transfer this matter to the 13 Western District. No explicit agreement was negotiated between the parties, let 14 alone one that would favor one venue over another. Both Districts are equally 15 familiar with Federal and Washington State law. As stated in the briefing, modern 16 litigation can take place over the internet, and the costs incurred upon the parties 17 travelling to the Eastern District are negligible. Similarly, the majority of potential 18 non-party witnesses are nearby. Indeed, some courts have noted that convenience 19 of witnesses is “the most important factor in resolving a motion to transfer.” Lopez 20 v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 FILED IN THE 3 U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 Mar 21, 2023 5 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 NATIONAL CENTER FOR PUBILC 10 POLICY RESEARCH, No. 2:22-CV-00267-SAB 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 HOWARD SCHULTZ, et al., CHANGE VENUE 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff initiated this action in Spokane County Superior Court, and 17 Defendants removed it to the Eastern District of Washington on November 7, 18 2022. Plaintiff is a Delaware non-profit corporation, with its principal place of 19 business in Washington, D.C. None of the Defendants are alleged to be residents of 20 Delaware or Washington, D.C. On August 22, 2022, Plaintiff commenced this 21 action in the Spokane County Superior Court. On October 17, 2022, Defendants 22 removed the state action to the Eastern District. Plaintiffs are suing Starbucks and 23 various Directors and Officers of Starbucks, seeking a declaratory judgment that 24 certain policies of Starbucks violate 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII, and various state 25 laws that prohibit discrimination; that Starbuck’s Directors and Officers breached 26 their fiduciary obligations and violated Wash. Rev. Code § 7.24.010. Plaintiffs are 27 seeking injunctive relief. 28 1 Defendants move to transfer this action to the United States District Court 2 for the Western District of Washington pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). 3 Defendants argue this action should be transferred to the Western District of 4 Washington because this is where Starbucks is headquartered, where the key 5 operative facts took place, and where many of Defendants, potential witnesses, and 6 vital documents are located. Defendants assert the transfer to the Western District 7 would facilitate the most convenient, cost-effective, and efficient method of 8 addressing the issues presented in this case. 9 Upon reviewing the briefing and the relevant caselaw, the Court denies 10 Defendants’ Motion to Change Venue to the Western District of Washington. 11 12 Legal Standard 13 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides that “for the convenience of the parties and 14 witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to 15 any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or 16 division to which all parties have consented.” The purpose of the section is to 17 “prevent the waste of time, energy, and money, and to protect litigants, witnesses, 18 and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense.” Van Dusen v. 19 Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964) (internal quotation marks omitted). Section 20 1404(a) effectively codified the doctrine of forum non conveniens but allows for 21 the direct transfer from one federal forum to another, proper forum instead of 22 dismissal of the action. Atl. Marine Construction Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for the 23 Western Dist. of Texas, 571 U.S. 49, 60 (2013). 24 For the purposes of § 1404, a case “might have been brought” in another 25 forum if that forum has both subject-matter and personal jurisdiction over the case 26 and parties and would be a proper venue under Section 1391(b). Hoffman v. Blaski, 27 363 U.S. 335, 344 (1960). Once this element is satisfied, district courts apply an 28 eight-factor balancing test to evaluate whether convenience, fairness, and the 1 interests of justice support transfer. Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 2 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000). District courts must analyze whether: (1) the location 3 where the relevant agreements were negotiated and executed; (2) the state that is 4 most familiar with the governing law; (3) plaintiff’s choice of forum; (4) the 5 respective parties’ contacts with the forum; (5) the contacts relating to plaintiff’s 6 cause of action in the chose forum; (6) the differences in the costs of litigation in 7 the two forums; (7) the availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of 8 unwilling non-party witnesses, and; (8) the ease of access to sources of proof. 9 Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000). A court 10 may consider the location where relevant agreements were negotiated and 11 executed, the respective parties’ contacts with the forum, and the contacts relating 12 to the plaintiff’s cause of action in the chosen form. Id. 13 In addition to the Jones factors, a plaintiff’s choice of forum is generally due 14 substantial deference. Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987). The 15 defendant bears the burden of establishing that transfer is appropriate. Piper 16 Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 255-56 (1981). The defendant must make a 17 strong showing that inconvenience and the interests of justice warrant upsetting a 18 plaintiff’s choice of forum. Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 19 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). The decision to transfer, however, is ultimately left 20 to the district court’s discretion based on an “individualized, case-by-case 21 consideration of convenience and fairness.” Stewart Org, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 22 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (quoting Van Dusen 376 U.S. at 622). In this District, “great 23 weight is generally accorded plaintiff’s choice of forum unless the operative facts 24 have not occurred within the forum and the forum has no interest in the parties or 25 subject matter.” Peterson v. Nat’l Sec. Techs., LLC, No.12-CV-5025-TOR, 2012 26 WL 3264952, at *3 (E.D. Wash. Aug. 9, 2012). 27 // 28 // 1 Analysis 2 Under Section 1404(a), the Western District is one where the case “might 3 have been brought”, but the balancing Jones factors do not weigh in favor of 4 Defendants’ motion to transfer this case to the Western District. Of the eight 5 factors considering convenience, fairness, and the interest of justice outlined in 6 Jones, five are neutral as to whether the case is litigated in either district, and three 7 factors favor maintaining this action in the Eastern District of Washington 8 Specifically, Plaintiff’s choice of forum, the respective parties’ contacts with the 9 forum, and those contacts relating to Plaintiff’s cause of action in this chosen 10 forum weigh in favor of continuing this matter in the Eastern District. 11 Factors one, two, six, seven, and eight outlined in Jones (and listed in order 12 above) are neutral as to whether the Court should transfer this matter to the 13 Western District. No explicit agreement was negotiated between the parties, let 14 alone one that would favor one venue over another. Both Districts are equally 15 familiar with Federal and Washington State law. As stated in the briefing, modern 16 litigation can take place over the internet, and the costs incurred upon the parties 17 travelling to the Eastern District are negligible. Similarly, the majority of potential 18 non-party witnesses are nearby. Indeed, some courts have noted that convenience 19 of witnesses is “the most important factor in resolving a motion to transfer.” Lopez 20 v. BeavEx, Inc., 2015 WL 2437907, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 20, 2015); see also 21 Burns v. Gerber Products Co., 922 F. Supp. 2d 1168, 1173 (E.D. Wash. 2013). But 22 Plaintiff has not identified any witnesses, thus the Court only considers general 23 convenience. Finally, most, if not all the potential sources of proof in this case will 24 be electronic. Therefore, Jones factors one, two, six, seven, and eight are fair, 25 convenient, and in the interest of justice for either District. 26 Jones factors three, four, and five favor litigating this matter in the Eastern 27 District. As Plaintiff points out in Peterson, this Court holds that, “great weight is 28 generally accorded plaintiff’s choice of forum unless the operative facts have not occurred within the forum and the forum has no interest in the parties or subject matter.” Peterson, at *3. Spokane County was Plaintiffs first chose, thus 3|| evidencing a choice that this case remain in the Eastern District of Washington. Plaintiff showed a modicum of operative facts exist here and that this forum has an 5|| interest in the parties and subject matter. Defendant Starbucks’ operations and Plaintiff's representation of a portion of resident shareholders is as much present in the Eastern District, as in any other federal district in the country. Upon analysis, 8|| then, Jones factors three, four, and five favor continuing this dispute in the Eastern District. 10 On balance, the factors weigh in favor of keeping this matter before the 11|| Eastern District of Washington. While this matter could have been brought in the Western District, an analysis under the Jones balancing test shows that 13|| convenience, fairness, and the interests of justice are not inhibited by maintaining this litigation here. Of the eight factors, five are neutral and three favor maintainin 15|| litigation before this Court. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 17 l. Defendants’ Motion to Change Venue to the Western District of Washington, ECF No. 9, is DENIED. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is hereby directed to enter this Order and provide copies to counsel. 21 DATED this 21st day of March 2023. 22 23 24 ; a Shockey ec toar Stanley A. Bastian 27 Chief United States District Judge 28
ADTRAN NARI VIATARN TA woKddmac