Free Proposed Order - District Court of California - California

Case 4:08-cv-01849-SBA

Document 23

Filed 07/21/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Daniel P. Iannitelli - 203388 FOTOUHI · EPPS · HILLGER · GILROY LLP 160 Pine Street, Suite 710 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: 415.362.9300 Fax: 415.358.5521 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff RANDALL SLOAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHER DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION RANDALL J. SLOAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) ) PFIZER, INC., a Delaware corporation; and ) DOES 1 through 40, inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ) No. CV 08-1849 SBA [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT PFIZER, INC.'S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE Date: Time: Place: Court: July 29, 2008 1:00 p.m. Courtroom 3 Hon. Saundra B. Armstrong

The Motion to Transfer Venue of defendant PFIZER, INC. came regularly for hearing before the Honorable Saundra Brown Armstrong, in Courtroom 3, on July 29, 2008, at 1:00 p.m. Mitchell F. Boomer appearing on behalf of defendant Pfizer, Inc. and Daniel P. Iannitelli appearing on behalf of Plaintiff Randall Sloan. After full consideration of the evidence, the written and oral submissions by the parties, the Court rules as follows: Motions for transfer "lie within the broad discretion of the district court and are determined upon notions of convenience and fairness on a case-by-case basis." In re Cuyahoga Equipment Corp., 980 F.2d 110, 117 (2d Cir. 1992). When deciding a motion to transfer venue, the Court generally accords "great deference" to Plaintiff's choice of forum, in addition to considering several other factors, including: (1) the relative convenience of the selected forum and proposed forum; (2) the possible hardship to the plaintiff if the court grants the motion; (3) the interests of justice; and (4) the deference to be accorded the plaintiffs' choice of forum."
1 [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE - CV 08-1849

Case 4:08-cv-01849-SBA

Document 23

Filed 07/21/2008

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Jacobson v. Hughes Aircraft, 105 F.3d 1288, 1302 (9th Cir. 1997). While many of the witnesses and documents relevant to this matter are located in New York, many others are also located in California. The remaining factors, however, favor retaining this matter in California. Of great significance here is the relative burdens of the parties, which favor the Plaintiff Advideo Inc. v. Kimel Broadcast, 727 F.Supp 1337 (N.D. Cal. 1989); Dwyer v. General Motors Corp., 853 F. Supp. 690, 693-94 (SD NY 1994). As an individual with limited means and poor health, the burden on Plaintiff litigating this case in New York outweighs that of Defendant, who, by contrast, is a large multinational corporation with vast resources. Miracle v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 87 F.Supp.2d 1060 (D. HI 2000). Furthermore, Plaintiff's claims arise under California law and California has a legitimate interest in protecting is citizens. Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 645 (1964). For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue is DENIED. SO ORDERED:

Dated: ________, 2008

_______________________________ Saundra B. Armstrong United States District Judge

2

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE - CV 08-1849