Opinion
ORDER
LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, Senior District Judge.
Plaintiff Automated Legal Services has brought an action against defendant Professional Document Services alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition. Pending before the court is defendant's motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) or, in the alternative, motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The court decides the matter on the parties' papers and after oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, the court denies the motion to dismiss for improper venue but grants the motion to transfer.
I. Background
Plaintiff filed its complaint on September 22, 2006 in this district, advancing causes of action for trademark infringement and unfair competition. Plaintiff alleges defendant has unlawfully used the mark "ProDoc, " despite having notice of plaintiff's ownership of the PRODOC® mark.
Plaintiff provides evidence that defendant conducted business activities within this district, or at least advertised that it did so. First, as of June 2006, defendant's website stated that "In Northern California, we service Santa Clara, San Francisco, Alameda and Sacramento counties." Decl. of Debra Trevin ("Trevin Decl.") ¶ 9, Ex. B. Second, as of June 2006, defendant's website disclosed two offices in Sacramento. Id., Ex. A. It appears that at some point between June 2006 and the filing of defendant's reply brief, these websites were subsequently modified to remove references to Sacramento.
Defendant has tendered evidence it "does not maintain a place of business or conduct business operations within the Eastern District of California." Decl. of Kyle Lum ("Lum Decl.") ¶ 5. Furthermore, defendant submits that its main headquarters, as well as the majority of its documents, files, records, and employees, are located in Simi Valley, California (i.e., in the Central District of California).
II. Standard
Venue is proper in any district "in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). Section 1391 does not require that a majority of the events have occurred in the district where suit is filed, nor does it require that the events in that district predominate. Rodriguez v. California Highway Patrol , 89 F.Supp.2d 1131, 1136 (N.D. Cal. 2000). All that plaintiff needs to show is that a substantial part of the events giving rise to his claim occurred in the Eastern District of California. See id. If venue is improper in this district, then the court may transfer the case to any district or division in which it could have been brought if it is in the interests of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
Similarly, for the convenience of parties and witnesses, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought if it is in the interests of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). However, defendant must make a strong showing of inconvenience to warrant upsetting plaintiff's choice of forum. Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co. , 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). The relevant factors in this inquiry include plaintiff's choice of forum, convenience to the parties, convenience to the witnesses, ease of access to evidence, familiarity of the forum with applicable law, feasibility of consolidation with other claims, local interests in the controversy, and court congestion. Williams v. Bowman , 157 F.Supp.2d 1103, 1106 (N.D. Cal. 2001).
III. Analysis
Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) or, in the alternative, a motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(3). Plaintiff argues that venue is proper given defendant's contacts in this district and that defendant has not met its burden of proving that transfer is appropriate. For the reasons set forth below, the motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue is denied but the motion to transfer is granted.
First, venue is proper in this district because a substantial part of the events giving rise to plaintiff's claims occurred in the Eastern District of California. 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2). According to defendant's own website, it had two offices in Sacramento as recently as June 2006. Even if defendant has accurately represented that the website is outdated, it readily concedes that it conducted business within the Eastern District as recently as 2004. Reply to Pl.'s Opp'n to Mot. to Dismiss at 1. Because the PRODOC® mark was registered in 1996, Compl., Ex. A, it appears that a substantial part of the events giving rise to plaintiff's claims arose in this district. Accordingly, venue here is proper, and the motion to dismiss or transfer under 28 U.S.C. 1406(a) is denied.
Second, defendant requests that this case be transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the Central District of California. A district court may transfer any civil action to any other district where it might have been brought "[f]or the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interests of justice." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Ordinarily, plaintiff's choice of forum is entitled to considerable weight in this determination, but "the degree to which courts defer to plaintiff's chosen venue is substantially reduced when the plaintiff's choice is not its residence." Inherent. com v. Martindale-Hubbell , 420 F.Supp.2d 1093, 1099 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (internal quotes and citations omitted). Here, plaintiff is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Texas. Accordingly, plaintiff's choice of forum is not entitled to its ordinary weight. Pacific Car & Foundry Co. v. Pence , 403 F.2d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 1968) ("Plaintiff's choice of forum, then, is not the final word.").
Moreover, section 1404(a) directs the court to consider the convenience of the parties and witnesses. Defendant has identified two witnesses, Terri Lum and Kyle Lum, who are residents of Southern California and who would be inconvenienced if forced to travel to Sacramento. See Decl. of Kyle Lum, ¶¶ 8-10; Decl. of Terry Lum ¶¶ 3-5. As for the convenience of the parties, there is no doubt that it would be more convenient for defendant if this action were litigated in the Central District, given that its main headquarters, files, and records are located in Simi Valley, California. Plaintiff has not identified any reason why it would be more convenient for it to prosecute this action in the Eastern District versus the Central District.
Many of the factors typically employed in analyzing the "interests of justice" consideration are inapplicable here, because the requested transfer is to another district within California. For example, the issue of forum familiarity with applicable law, and whether the forum has an interest in the controversy, favors neither granting nor denying the requested transfer. Williams , 157 F.Supp.2d at 1106.
Ultimately, the only considerations to be weighed are, on the one hand, the inconveniences identified by defendant and, on the other hand, plaintiff's stated preference for this district over a sister district. Because this preference is weakened by the fact that plaintiff is an out-of-state resident, the court finds that defendants have demonstrated a sufficiently strong showing of inconvenience to warrant transfer.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, the court orders that the motion to dismiss or transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) is DENIED and the motion to transfer venue to the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.