Grainer v. Smallboard, Inc. et al

MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction or, in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue

E.D. Pa.January 17, 2017

Case 2:16-cv-04866-CDJ Document 12 Filed 01/17/17 Page 1 of 1 01/17/2017 SL1 1439785v1 110652.00001 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KEVIN GRANIER Plaintiff, v. SMALLBOARD, INC. AND HARISH PAREEK, Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : Civil Action No. 16-4866 [FILED ELECTRONICALLY] DEFENDANTS’ BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO RULE 12(B)(2) OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER VENUE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §1404(A) STEVENS & LEE, P.C. Lisa M. Scidurlo 620 Freedom Business Center, Suite 200 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Telephone: (610) 205-6042 lmsc@stevenslee.com Attorneys for Defendants Dated: January 17, 2017 Case 2:16-cv-04866-CDJ Document 12-1 Filed 01/17/17 Page 1 of 16 i 01/17/2017 SL1 1439785v1 110652.00001 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ..........................................................................3 1. Whether, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), this Court should dismiss this case because it lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendants .............................3 2. Whether, in the alternative, this Court should transfer this case to the Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404(a) ................................3 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY & SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...............................................3 III. ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................5 A. This Case Should Be Dismissed Pursuant To Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) For Lack Of Personal Jurisdiction .....................................................5 B. In the Alternative, This Case Should Be Transferred to the District of New Jersey for the Convenience of the Parties and Witnesses ..................................................9 IV. CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................14 V. CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………………12 Case 2:16-cv-04866-CDJ Document 12-1 Filed 01/17/17 Page 2 of 16 1 01/17/2017 SL1 1439785v1 110652.00001 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Bennett v. Itochu Intern., Inc., No. 09-1819, 2009 WL 2569259 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 17, 2009) ......................................................8 BP Chems. Ltd. v. Formosa Chem. & Fibre Corp., 229 F.3d 254 (3d Cir. 2000).......................................................................................................3 Burnham v. Sup. Ct. 495 U.S. 604 (1990) ...................................................................................................................2 Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) ...............................................................................................................6, 7 Daimler v. AG Bauer, 134 S.Ct. 746 (2014) ..........................................................................................................4, 5, 6 Flynn v. Hovensa, LLC, 2014 WL 337523 (W.D. Pa. July 3, 2014) ................................................................................4 Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) ...................................................................................................................3 IMO Industries, Inc. v. Kiekert AG, 155 F.3d 254 (3d Cir. 1998)...................................................................................................6, 7 International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310 ...................................................................................................................2 Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873 (3d Cir. 1995).........................................................................................................8 Lewis v. ACS Bus. Servs., 135 F.3d 389 (6th Cir. 1998) ...................................................................................................10 Marten v. Godwin, 499 F.3d 290 (3d Cir. 2007).......................................................................................................7 Mellon Bank v. Farino, 960 F.2d 1217 (3d Cir. 1992).....................................................................................................3 NCO Financial Systems, Inc. v. General Bar, Inc., No. 09-cv-2653, 2011 WL 3490114 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 10, 2011) ............................................10 O’Connor v. Sandy Lane Hotel Co., Ltd., 496 F.3d 312 (3d Cir. 2007).......................................................................................................3 Case 2:16-cv-04866-CDJ Document 12-1 Filed 01/17/17 Page 3 of 16 2 01/17/2017 SL1 1439785v1 110652.00001 Ostella v. IRBSearch, LLC, 2014 WL 3843880 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 5, 2014) ..........................................................................8, 9 Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981) .................................................................................................................10 Radian Guaranty, Inc. v. Bolden, 2014 WL 1757204 (E.D. Pa. May 2, 2014) ...........................................................................6, 7 STATUTES, RULES & REGULATIONS 28 U.S.C. § 1332 ............................................................................................................................10 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2) ...................................................................................................................10 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) .........................................................................................................................9 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) ...................................................................................................1, 2, 8, 10, 11 FED. R. CIV. P. 4(k)(1)(A) ................................................................................................................3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2)..................................................................................................1, 2, 3, 7, 11 42 PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. § 5322(b) ................................................................................................3 Case 2:16-cv-04866-CDJ Document 12-1 Filed 01/17/17 Page 4 of 16 3 01/17/2017 SL1 1439785v1 110652.00001 Defendants, Smallboard, Inc.1 (“Smallboard.com) and Harish Pareek (“Mr. Pareek”) (collectively “Defendants’”), hereby move, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) to dismiss this action for lack of personal jurisdiction. Alternatively, Defendants move, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a), to transfer venue from this Court to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. I. STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED 1. Whether, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), this Court should dismiss this case because it lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Suggested Answer: Yes. 2. Whether, in the alternative, this Court should transfer this case to the Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404(a). Suggested Answer: In the alternative, yes. II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY & SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT On or about September 2, 2016, Plaintiff, Keven Grainer (“Grainer” or “Plaintiff”) filed a two (2) Count Complaint in the United State District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that Smallboard.com and Mr. Pareek failed to pay Plaintiff certain wages and other amounts when he resigned as an employee in April 2016 and then resigned as a consultant later that same month. (Compl. at ¶¶ 26-29, 38, 39, 43). As relevant here, both Smallboard, Inc. and Harish Pareek are residents of California and all of events that gave rise to this lawsuit occurred in that state and/or Iowa and/or Wisconsin - none occurred in Pennsylvania. Indeed, in the Complaint, Plaintiff admits that he was retained by Smallboard in California, first as an employee and later as a consultant. While working with Smallboard, 1 The correct name of “Smallboard, Inc.” is “Smallboard.com”. Case 2:16-cv-04866-CDJ Document 12-1 Filed 01/17/17 Page 5 of 16 4 01/17/2017 SL1 1439785v1 110652.00001 Plaintiff worked on only two projects, Wellmark, which was located in Iowa, and Clearwave, which was located in Wisconsin. Plaintiff concedes in his Complaint that California law applies to this business relationship and thus California is the more appropriate forum for this dispute. (Compl. at ¶¶ 24-36). This case must be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) as this Court does not have specific or general personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Where a defendant has no presence or domicile in the forum state, personal jurisdiction requires that the defendant have “minimum contacts” with the forum state. International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316. Thus, Federal courts cannot assert jurisdiction over defendants who lack sufficient “contacts” with the forum state. And, a judgment rendered by a court lacking personal jurisdiction violates constitutional requirements of due process of law. Such a judgment is voidable either by direct attack (appeal) or collateral attack (separate lawsuit or defense to enforcement proceeding). Burnham v. Sup. Ct. 495 U.S. 604, 608-610 (1990). In light of the undisputed facts as described herein, this Court should dismiss the case summarily for lack of jurisdiction. In the alternative, the Court should transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). To the extent that the Court exerts jurisdiction over Defendants, the United States District Court for the Central District of California is the appropriate forum for this lawsuit because it has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims (both of which are pled under California state law), personal jurisdiction over Defendants, and because the vast majority - if not all - of the alleged events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in that district. There are no Pennsylvania state law claims at issue in this case and there is absolutely no connection to Pennsylvania other than the allegation that Case 2:16-cv-04866-CDJ Document 12-1 Filed 01/17/17 Page 6 of 16 5 01/17/2017 SL1 1439785v1 110652.00001 Plaintiff resides in the state. For all of these reasons, the Court should dismiss the case pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) or transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. III. ARGUMENT A. This Case Should Be Dismissed Pursuant To Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) For Lack Of Personal Jurisdiction. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) provides for the dismissal of a case for “lack of personal jurisdiction.” Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k), a district court exercises personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant according to the law of the state where it sits. See FED. R. CIV. P. 4(k)(1)(A); O’Connor v. Sandy Lane Hotel Co., Ltd., 496 F.3d 312, 316 (3d Cir. 2007). The Pennsylvania long-arm statute provides for jurisdiction “based on the most minimum contact with th[e] Commonwealth allowed under the Constitution of the United States.” 42 PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. § 5322(b); Mellon Bank v. Farino, 960 F.2d 1217, 1221 (3d Cir. 1992) (finding that Pennsylvania’s long-arm statute is coextensive with the constitutional limits of due process). Accordingly, a Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if the defendant has “certain minimum contacts with [Pennsylvania] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” O’Connor, 496 F.3d at 316 (quoting Int’l Shoe Co., 326 U.S. at 316). Unless the defendant’s contacts with the forum are “continuous and systematic,” such that the Court has general personal jurisdiction over the defendant, those contacts must be specifically related to the present cause of action. See Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414-16 (1984). “Specific personal jurisdiction exists [only] when the defendant has ‘purposefully directed his activities at residents of the forum and the litigation results from alleged injuries that arise out of or related to those activities.’” BP Chems. Ltd. v. Formosa Case 2:16-cv-04866-CDJ Document 12-1 Filed 01/17/17 Page 7 of 16 6 01/17/2017 SL1 1439785v1 110652.00001 Chem. & Fibre Corp., 229 F.3d 254, 259 (3d Cir. 2000) (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472, (1985)) (emphasis added). 1. This Court Lacks General Jurisdiction Over Defendants. This Court lacks general jurisdiction over Defendants under the Supreme Court’s decision in Daimler v. AG Bauer, 134 S.Ct. 746 (2014) and its progeny. To determine whether general jurisdiction exists, the relevant inquiry is whether “affiliations with the State are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render [it] essentially at home in the forum State.” Id. at 761. The Daimler case makes it clear that Plaintiff’s residence in Pennsylvania does not confer Pennsylvania courts with general jurisdiction over Defendants - that is, jurisdiction that is unrelated to the acts giving rise to the lawsuit. Other Courts have similarly ruled. For example, in Flynn v. Hovensa, LLC, 2014 WL 337523, at *3 (W.D. Pa. July 3, 2014), the Court applied the Daimler general jurisdiction analysis and found that it lacked general jurisdiction over a defendant corporation, Hess, which owned several convenience stores in Pennsylvania. Specifically, in reaching its decision, the Court reasoned: The ownership of retail stores is not enough to meet the general jurisdiction standard set forth in Daimler. See Daimler, 134 S.Ct. at 751-52 (explaining that regional offices are not enough to consider a corporation “at home” in a forum in which it does not have its principal place of business or place of incorporation). Therefore, even if Defendant Hess engaged in substantial business in Pennsylvania, the Court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over it. See also Sonera Holding, 750 F.3d 221, 2014 WL 1645255, at *4. Because Plaintiffs have failed to meet the standard set forth in Daimler by showing that Defendant Hess is “at home” in Pennsylvania, the Court cannot exercise general personal jurisdiction over Hess. Id., at *4. Indeed, it is well settled that only a limited set of affiliations with a forum will render a defendant amenable to all-purpose jurisdiction there. “For an individual, the paradigm forum for the exercise of general jurisdiction is the individual's domicile; for a corporation, it is an Case 2:16-cv-04866-CDJ Document 12-1 Filed 01/17/17 Page 8 of 16 7 01/17/2017 SL1 1439785v1 110652.00001 equivalent place, one in which the corporation is fairly regarded as at home.” Daimler, 134 S.Ct. at 760. With respect to a corporation, the place of incorporation and principal place of business are “paradig[m] . . . bases for general jurisdiction.” Id. The Daimler Court reasoned that these bases afford plaintiffs recourse to at least one clear and certain forum in which a corporate defendant may be sued on any and all claims. Id. To establish general jurisdiction under Daimler the inquiry is “not whether a foreign corporation's in-forum contacts can be said to be in some sense ‘continuous and systematic,’ it is whether that corporation's ‘affiliations with the State are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render [it] essentially at home in the forum State.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). Applying this analysis here, it is clear and beyond question that this Court does not have general jurisdiction over Defendants as they do not have “continuous and systematic” contacts in Pennsylvania as contemplated by Daimler. Defendants do not fairly call Pennsylvania “home” and they have no operations in this state at all. (Exhibit A, Declaration of Harish Pareek at ¶¶ 3-5, 8).2 Smallboard.com is incorporated in California and operates a single office Los Angeles County. (Exhibit A at ¶ 3). Smallboard.com does not have an office in Pennsylvania, has never filed a corporate tax return in Pennsylvania, does not maintain any bank accounts in Pennsylvania, and does not own any property in Pennsylvania. (Exhibit A at ¶ 5). Smallboard.com does not have a principal place of business in Pennsylvania, nor does it have a telephone listing or a registered agent. (Exhibit A at ¶ 4). Plaintiff did not work in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania either as an employee or consultant of Smallboard.com. (Exhibit A at ¶ 7). Smallboard.com has no Pennsylvania employees and no Pennsylvania accounts or customer. (Exhibit A at ¶ 8). 2 In considering the Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2), the Court may rely upon the affidavits and other competent evidence the parties may submit. See, e.g., Metcalfe v. Renaissance Marine, Inc., 566 F.3d 324, 331 (3d Cir. 2009); Dayhoff Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 86 F.3d 1287, 1302 (3d Cir.1996). Case 2:16-cv-04866-CDJ Document 12-1 Filed 01/17/17 Page 9 of 16 8 01/17/2017 SL1 1439785v1 110652.00001 In short, Defendants’ presence in Pennsylvania is less than minimal, it is non-existent, and is certainly not enough to render it “amenable to all-purpose jurisdiction” in this state. Rather, Defendants’ “home” and principal place of business is in California and its presence in Pennsylvania is not significant enough to justify general jurisdiction under the Daimler analysis. 2. The Court Does Not Have Specific Jurisdiction Over This Case. This Court also does not have specific jurisdiction over this case. To establish specific jurisdiction when a plaintiff alleges that the defendant has committed a wrongful act, the Court must analyze the defendant’s contacts with the forum under the effects test as established by the Supreme Court in Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). See Radian Guaranty, Inc. v. Bolden, 2014 WL 1757204, at *6 (E.D. Pa. May 2, 2014). Under the effects test, specific personal jurisdiction exists over the defendant if the plaintiff can show that: (1) the defendant committed an intentional tort; (2) the plaintiff felt the brunt of the harm in the forum such that the forum can be said to be the focal point of the harm suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the tort; and (3) the defendant expressly aimed his tortious conduct at the forum such that the forum can be said to be the focal point of the tortious activity. Id. (citing IMO Industries, Inc. v. Kiekert AG, 155 F.3d 254, 265-66 (3d Cir. 1998)); see Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 788-89 (1984) (finding personal jurisdiction in California over Florida reporter who wrote a defamatory article about a Pennsylvania resident). The Third Circuit evokes the effects-based jurisdiction sparingly and a defendant’s knowledge that a plaintiff resides in a forum does not establish that the defendant expressly aimed its conduct at the forum. IMO Industries, Inc., 155 F.3d at 265. The requirement that the plaintiff demonstrate that the defendant “expressly aimed its tortious conduct at the forum” is “critical” to the effects test. Radian, 2014 WL 1757204, at *6 (citing Marten v. Godwin, 499 F.3d 290, 298 (3d Cir. 2007)). “Simply asserting that the Case 2:16-cv-04866-CDJ Document 12-1 Filed 01/17/17 Page 10 of 16 9 01/17/2017 SL1 1439785v1 110652.00001 defendant knew that the plaintiff’s principal place of business was located in the forum would be insufficient in itself to meet this requirement. The defendant must manifest behavior intentionally targeted at and focused on the forum for Calder to be satisfied.” IMO Indus., 155 F.3d at 265 (internal quotations marks omitted). Critically, “the state of a plaintiff’s residence does not on its own create jurisdiction over nonresident defendants.” Marten, 499 F.3d at 298. The relevant inquiry in this analysis is whether Defendants “expressly aimed its tortious conduct at the forum,” to which the answer is “no.” Bolden, 2014 WL 1757204, at *6. Even if Plaintiff has allegedly been injured in Pennsylvania by virtue of his residence, this allegation does not establish specific jurisdiction. Mason v. Starwood hotels and Resorts Worldwide, Inc., 2011 WL 6934066 at *3 (E.D. Pa.). Defendants did not aim any decisions regarding Plaintiff, who was hired in California and worked in Wisconsin and Iowa, to Pennsylvania. Indeed, each and every event occurred in either California or Wisconsin. Plaintiff never worked a day in Pennsylvania, and no relevant documents or Defendants’ witnesses are located here. In fact, it is undisputed that Defendants are domiciled in California and any decisions made with respect to Plaintiff were made in and communicated from that state. The mere fact that Plaintiff is a Pennsylvania resident does not confer a court in Pennsylvania with personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Marten, 499 F.3d at 298. Accordingly, in consideration of the factors set forth above, this Court does not have specific or general personal jurisdiction over Defendants, and the case should be dismissed on this basis pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). B. In the Alternative, This Case Should Be Transferred to the District of New Jersey for the Convenience of the Parties and Witnesses. Even if this Court finds that it has personal jurisdiction over Defendants, the Court should, for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, transfer venue to the United States Case 2:16-cv-04866-CDJ Document 12-1 Filed 01/17/17 Page 11 of 16 10 01/17/2017 SL1 1439785v1 110652.00001 District Court for the Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) (“Change of Venue”), which provides, in relevant part: (a) 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 where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).3 Under 1404(a), the Court has “broad discretion to determine, on an individualized case-by-case basis, whether convenience and fairness considerations weigh in favor of transfer.” Ostella v. IRBSearch, LLC, 2014 WL 3843880, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 5, 2014) (quoting Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879-80 (3d Cir. 1995)). The moving party must show that “all relevant things considered, the case would be better off transferred to another district.” Ostella, 2014 WL 3843880, at *4 (quoting In re United States, 273 F.3d 380, 388 (3d Cir. 2001) (internal quotations and citation omitted). In undertaking the § 1404(a) transfer analysis, “there is no definitive formula or list of . . . factors to consider,” but the Court of Appeals’ decision in Jumara identified a number of public and private interests that Courts may consider when deciding motions to transfer. Id.; see also Bennett v. Itochu Intern., Inc., No. 09-1819, 2009 WL 2569259, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 17, 2009) (“the defendant bears the burden of showing that, on the balance of identified public and private factors, considerations weigh ‘strongly’ in favor of transfer”) (citation omitted). Relevant private interests to consider in weighing whether venue transfer is appropriate include: [p]laintiff’s forum preference as manifested in the original choice; the defendant’s preference; whether the claim arose elsewhere; the convenience of the parties as indicated by their relative physical and financial condition; the convenience of the witnesses-but only to the extent that the witnesses may actually be unavailable for trial in one of the fora; and the location of books and records (similarly limited to the extent that the files could not be produced in the alternative forum). 3 Defendants have repeatedly attempted to obtain Plaintiff’s consent to transfer this case to the proper forum without the necessity of Motion practice. Plaintiff has not consented to transfer. Case 2:16-cv-04866-CDJ Document 12-1 Filed 01/17/17 Page 12 of 16 11 01/17/2017 SL1 1439785v1 110652.00001 Ostella, 2014 WL 3843880, at *4 (quoting Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879) (internal citations omitted). Public interests to consider in weighing whether venue transfer is appropriate include: the enforceability of the judgment; practical considerations that could make the trial easy, expeditious, or inexpensive; the relative administrative difficulty in the two fora resulting from court congestion; the local interest in deciding local controversies at home; the public policies of the fora; and the familiarity of the trial judge with the applicable state law in diversity cases. Ostella, 2014 WL 3843880, at *4 (quoting Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879-80) (internal citations omitted); Matthews v. America Pizza Co., LLC, 2014 WL 1407664 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 10, 2014). Where (as here) jurisdiction is based solely on diversity of citizenship, venue is appropriate in any of the following locations: (1) where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state; (2) where a “substantial part” of the activity giving rise to the activity took place; or (3) where any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction if there is no other proper district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). A corporate defendant “resides” in any district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction. Id. § 1391(d). There is no question that this Court lacks jurisdiction over this case and that venue properly lies in Central California. Indeed, all things considered, this case should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The private factors (Defendants’ preference; the claim arose in California; and the convenience of witnesses) and public factors (the local interest in deciding local controversies at home; the relative administrative difficulty in the two fora resulting from court congestion; and, possibly, the familiarity of the trial judge with the applicable state law) dictate that transfer to California is warranted. Moreover, also in favor of transfer, the United States District Court for the Central District of California is a district “where [this action] might have been brought.” Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 257 (1981). “An action ‘might have been brought’ in a district if Case 2:16-cv-04866-CDJ Document 12-1 Filed 01/17/17 Page 13 of 16 12 01/17/2017 SL1 1439785v1 110652.00001 that district has: (1) subject matter jurisdiction over the claims; (2) personal jurisdiction over the parties; and (3) is a proper venue.” NCO Financial Systems, Inc. v. General Bar, Inc., No. 09-cv-2653, 2011 WL 3490114, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 10, 2011). The fulfills all three requirements. First, the Central District of California would have subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in this civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, diversity jurisdiction. Second, the Central District of California would have personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they are residents of California. Finally, venue would be proper in the Central District of California because it is “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2). Indeed, it is the only federal judicial district in which the events giving rise to the claim assessment, and all of the asserted claims arise under California law. A transfer to the Central District of California satisfies not only these initial requirement of a proper venue but also § 1404(a)’s qualitative analysis. Although a plaintiff’s choice of forum should be considered, § 1404(a) does not cloak the plaintiff with absolute choice of venue. Instead, § 1404(a) recognizes that a transfer may promote “the convenience of parties and witnesses” and “justice.” Thus, a plaintiff’s preference cannot trump other relevant factors, especially where, as here, the operative facts giving rise to the claim did not occur in the forum that she selected. See, e.g., Lewis v. ACS Bus. Servs., 135 F.3d 389, 413 (6th Cir. 1998). Because the operative events giving rise to the claims occurred in California, the vast majority of the witnesses and documents will be in California. No Pennsylvania state law claims have been pled. A federal District Court in California may be more adept and familiar with California law, just as a District Court in Pennsylvania obviously Case 2:16-cv-04866-CDJ Document 12-1 Filed 01/17/17 Page 14 of 16 13 01/17/2017 SL1 1439785v1 110652.00001 would be with Pennsylvania law. Allowing the District Court most familiar with the governing law to adjudicate the case may serve to promote judicial economy. In sum, the convenience of parties and witnesses, the interest of justice, considerations of comity, and judicial economy weigh strongly in favor of a venue transfer to the Central District of California. Therefore, even if this Court were to exert personal jurisdiction over Defendants, the Court should nevertheless exercise its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer venue to the District of Central California. Case 2:16-cv-04866-CDJ Document 12-1 Filed 01/17/17 Page 15 of 16 14 01/17/2017 SL1 1439785v1 110652.00001 IV. CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction over Defendants, or, in the alternative, that venue be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Dated: January 17, 2017 STEVENS & LEE By: /s/ Lisa M. Scidurlo, Esquire Lisa M. Scidurlo Attorney I.D. No. 26922 620 Freedom Business Center, Suite 600 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Telephone: (610) 205-6042 Case 2:16-cv-04866-CDJ Document 12-1 Filed 01/17/17 Page 16 of 16 Case 2:16-cv-04866-CDJ Document 12-2 Filed 01/17/17 Page 1 of 3 Case 2:16-cv-04866-CDJ Document 12-2 Filed 01/17/17 Page 2 of 3 Case 2:16-cv-04866-CDJ Document 12-2 Filed 01/17/17 Page 3 of 3 Case 2:16-cv-04866-CDJ Document 12-3 Filed 01/17/17 Page 1 of 1 Case 2:16-cv-04866-CDJ Document 12-4 Filed 01/17/17 Page 1 of 1 Case 2:16-cv-04866-CDJ Document 12-5 Filed 01/17/17 Page 1 of 1