Fastcap, LLC v. Snake River Tool Co., Case No. 15-cv-02764-JSC

• Decision Date: 06 November 2015
• Docket Number: Case No. 15-cv-02764-JSC
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
• Parties: FASTCAP, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. SNAKE RIVER TOOL CO., LLC DBA ROUSSEAU COMPANY, et al., Defendants.

FASTCAP, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. SNAKE RIVER TOOL CO., LLC DBA ROUSSEAU COMPANY, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-02764-JSC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

November 6, 2015

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

Re: Dkt. No. 28

Plaintiff FastCap, LLC ("FastCap") brings claims of patent infringement against Defendants Snake River Tool Co., LLC dba Rousseau Company ("Snake River Tool") and its President Dale Alldredge ("Alldredge," and together "Defendants"). Now pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Transfer to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. (Dkt. No. 28.) After carefully considering the parties' pleadings, and having the benefit of oral argument on October 29, 2015, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion and TRANSFERS this case to the Eastern District of Washington.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

FastCap is a Washington limited liability company with its principal place of business in Ferndale, Washington. (Dkt. No. 11 ¶ 1.) FastCap's members also reside in Washington. (Dkt. No. 28-2 ¶ 7.) The 8,006,727 B1 patent ("the '727 Patent"), issued to FastCap on August 30, 2011, pertains to its "Protective Cover/Shield for Woodworking Equipment," a "saw dust collection hood for power tools." (Dkt. No. 11 ¶ 9.) The '727 patent's first- and second-named inventors are "identified at" addresses in Washington, and the attorney who wrote and prosecuted the patent practices law in Washington. (Dkt. No. 28-2 ¶¶ 10, 11.)

Snake River Tool is an Idaho limited liability company: its members, including Alldredge, reside in Idaho. (Dkt No. 28-3 ¶¶ 3-4; Dkt. No. 38-2 at 2.) Its principal place of business is in Clarkston, Washington. (Dkt. No. 28-3 ¶ 4.) The business employs four people, each of whom had a part in the manufacture, sale or marketing of the Rousseau 5000. (Dkt. No. 28-3 ¶ 9.) FastCap alleges the Rousseau 5000 infringes the '727 patent. (Dkt. No. 11 ¶ 10.)

Snake River Tool has no physical business locations outside of Washington, but its products still reach most or all 50 states, including California.¹ (Dkt. No. 28-3 ¶¶ 5, 8.) The company sells products through sellers and distributors across the United States. (Dkt. No. 39 ¶¶ 4-5 (listing distributors based in New Mexico, Utah, New York, Virginia, and Maryland).) Four resellers are in Spokane, Washington. (Dkt. No. 43 ¶ 5.) Two distributors are located in California: Woodcraft, in San Carlos and Sacramento, and Mike's Tools of Santa Ana. (Dkt. No. 11 ¶ 2; Dkt. No. 39 ¶¶ 4-5.) Snake River Tool does not attend trade shows in, send sales people to, or employ anyone in California. (Dkt. No. 28-3 ¶¶ 6-7.) Neither Snake River Tool nor FastCap is registered to do business in California. (Dkt. No. 28-2 ¶¶ 8-9.)

FastCap filed suit in this District on June 19, 2015, and filed its First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on July 24, 2015. (See Dkt. Nos. 1, 11.) In the FAC, FastCap alleges one cause of action: patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271. (Dkt. No. 11 ¶ 7-15.) Defendants subsequently filed the pending Motion to Transfer Venue to the Eastern District of Washington pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).² (Dkt. No. 28.)

LEGAL STANDARDS

The Court has discretion to transfer a case to another district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which provides: "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). "Because a motion to transfer does not involve substantive issues of patent law, Defendants' motion is governed by regional circuit law." Peregrine Semiconductor Corp. v. RF Micro Devices, Inc., No. 12cv911-IEG, 2012 WL 2068728, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 8, 2012).

In deciding whether to transfer a case pursuant to Section 1404(a), "[t]he transferor court must first determine whether the action might have been brought in the transferee court, and then the court must make an individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness." Ctr. for Biological Diversity & Pac. Env't v. Kempthorne, No. C-07-0894, 2007 WL 2023515, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000) (same). "The moving party bears the burden of showing that jurisdiction and proper venue would exist in the district to which a transfer is requested." Wireless Consumers Alliance, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. C 03-3711 MHP, 2003 WL 22387598, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2003). To determine convenience and fairness, this District commonly articulates the following relevant factors in a motion to transfer venue:

(1) the plaintiff's choice of forum; (2) the convenience of the parties; (3) the convenience of the witnesses; (4) ease of access to evidence; (5) familiarity of each forum with applicable law; (6) feasibility of consolidation of other claims; (7) any local interest in the controversy; and (8) the relative court congestion and time to trial in each forum.

Martin v. Global Tel*Link Corp., No. 15-cv-00449-YGR, 2015 WL 2124379, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2015); see also Jones, 211 F.3d at 498-99 (articulating additional factors to consider such as "respective parties' contacts with the forum" and "differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums"). "No single factor is dispositive." Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne, No. C 08-1339 CW, 2008 WL 4543043, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2008). Instead, "[w]eighing of thesefactors for and against transfer involves subtle considerations and is best left to the discretion of the trial judge." Ventress v. Japan Airlines, 486 F.3d 1111, 1118 (9th Cir. 2007). Further, "[t]his list is non-exclusive, and courts may consider other factors, or only those factors which are pertinent to the case at hand." Global Tel*Link, 2015 WL 2124379, at *2.

"It is not enough for the defendant to merely show that it prefers another forum, and transfer will also not be allowed if the result is merely to shift the convenience from one party to another." Lax v. Toyota Motor Corp., 65 F. Supp. 3d 772, 776 (N.D. Cal. 2014); see also Catch Curve, Inc. v. Venali, Inc., No. CV 05-04820 DDP, 2006 WL 4568799, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2006) (defendant "must demonstrate that the present forum will result in a clear balance of inconvenience to him or her"). In connection with motions to transfer, courts should only consider undisputed facts supported by affidavits, depositions, stipulations, or other relevant documents. See Midwest Precision Servs., Inc. v. PTM Indus. Corp., 574 F. Supp. 657, 659 (N.D. Ill. 1983). Vague generalizations or conclusory declarations are insufficient to meet this burden. See Forte Capital Partners v. Harris Cramer, No. C07-01237 MJJ, 2007 WL 1430052, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2007).

DISCUSSION

A. Objections to Evidence in Reply Brief

Before reaching the substance of the Section 1404(a) inquiry, the Court will address FastCap's objection to, and request to strike, certain evidence in Defendants' reply. (See Dkt. No. 44.) Under Civil Local Rule 7-3(c), "[a]ny reply to an opposition may include affidavits or declarations." However, "[i]f new evidence has been submitted in the reply, the opposing party may file and serve an Objection to Reply Evidence. Civ. L.R. 7-3(d)(1). In doing so, "the objecting party should state some substantive challenge to the evidence to which he or she objects." Simpson v. Best Western Int'l, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-04672-JCS, 2012 WL 5499928, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2012).

Defendants' reply refers to the separately filed Second Declarations of Mark Hendricksen and Dale Alldredge. (See Dkt. Nos. 41-43.) Mr. Hendricksen's declaration (i) describes his experience crossing the bridge from Lewiston, Idaho, to Clarkston, Washington, (ii) lists four FastCap distributors in Spokane, gleaned from his review of FastCap's website, and (iii) providesspecific distances between the Eastern District of Washington and relevant locations for FastCap and defendants. (Dkt. No. 42 ¶¶ 4-6; Dkt. No. 42-1.) Mr. Alldredge's declaration indicates (i) Snake River Tool sells its products through the same Washington distributors as FastCap, and (ii) Mr. Andy Alldredge, a potential witness listed in Defendants' motion to transfer, is a Lewiston, Idaho resident. (Dkt. No. 43 ¶¶ 5-7.) FastCap timely objected under Civil Local Rule 7-3(d)(1), and requested the Court strike the information as new evidence the Defendants failed to provide in the original motion. (See Dkt. No. 44 at 2-4.) As this evidence merely responds to arguments FastCap raised in its Opposition, (see Dkt. No. 36 at 5-7, 10, 13 (discussing distances); id. at 8, 12 (highlighting Defendants' failure to provide Andy Alldredge's residency)), or elaborates on points made in Defendants' motion (see Dkt. No. 28 at 8 (identifying Andy Alldredge as potential witness); id. at 11 (indicating businesses in Washington also sell the accused product)), the Court OVERRULES FastCap's objections.

B. Section 1404(a) Transfer

Defendants seek to transfer this patent infringement action to the Eastern District of Washington where both FastCap and Snake River Tool operate their principal places of business. Defendants do not challenge venue in this District, nor do Plaintiffs dispute that they could have filed suit in the Eastern District of Washington. Instead, the parties focus their arguments on the convenience and fairness factors discussed below.

1. The Action Could Have Been Brought in the Eastern District of Washington

Plaintiffs do not dispute the case might have been brought in the proposed court; nonetheless, Defendants bear the burden of showing that jurisdiction and venue would be proper. The Court cannot assume or consider waiver of jurisdictional issues on a 1404(a) transfer. See Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335,...