Opinion
No. 09 Civ. 7151 (RJS), No. 10 Civ. 1188 (RJS).
April 19, 2010
The Law Offices of Wasserman, Comden Casselman, L.L.P., BY: MELLISA M. HARNETT, Los Angeles, CA, Attorney for the Plaintiff.
Girard Gibbs LLP, BY: GEOFFREY A. MUNROE, San Francisco, CA.
Loeb Loeb LLP, BY: MARK D. CAMPBELL, Los Angeles, CA, Attorney for the Defendant.
ORDER
Plaintiffs bring these related putative class actions on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of Toyota customers. For the reasons stated below, the actions are hereby transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
The Collado action was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 1, 2009. On July 27, 2009, the parties appeared before the Honorable Manuel L. Real, District Judge, for argument on Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. Without hearing argument from counsel, Judge Real sua sponte ordered the action transferred to this district, as the one named Plaintiff — Carlos Collado — resided here and Judge Real believed that New York law would apply to the case. (Tr. July 27, 2009, at 4:19-5:5.)
A copy of the transcript of the proceeding before Judge Real is attached to this Order.
Since the Collado case was transferred to this Court, several important facts have changed. Plaintiffs have amended their complaint, and they now name eight plaintiffs, only one of whom resides in New York. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 6-13.) Equally importantly, the parties agree that California law must be applied in resolving Defendant's motion to dismiss. ( Id. ¶¶ 88-95; Def.'s Opp'n at 2 n. 1.) In justifying the choice of California law, the amended complaint pleads that Toyota's principal offices are located in California (Am. Compl. ¶ 89), a quarter of the proposed class is located in California ( id), the conduct complained of occurred in California (id.), and the personnel who made the decisions complained of are located in California ( id. ¶¶ 90-93). Of the twelve counsel who have appeared in this case, moreover, all but one is located in California.
On February 16, 2010, the Fixler action was filed in this district. The action, which names a Florida plaintiff, was presumably brought here because Collado had already been transferred to this district. The Fixler complaint contains choice-of-law allegations nearly identical to those in the Collado complaint, and the Fixler complaint accordingly contends that California law applies to that action as well. (Compl. ¶¶ 39-47.)
The Court is mindful of the fact that the Collado parties have already endured one change of venue, and it is hesitant to transfer the action once more. Nevertheless, the Court is persuaded that all relevant considerations under law compel the conclusion that these actions belong in California. The Court is also persuaded that the prejudice to the parties will be low, as the briefs that have been filed — which were fully submitted on February 26, 2010, and cite almost entirely to California law — will be particularly useful to a judge well-versed in California law. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to transfer these actions to the Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
DATED: April 19, 2010 New York, New York
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION CARLOS COLLADO, on behalf of ) himself and all others similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiff, ) No. CV 09-3087 R ) vs. ) ) TOYOTA MOTOR SALES U.S.A. ) INC., a California corporation, ) ) Defendant. ) TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS THE HONORABLE MANUEL L. REAL, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE PRESIDING LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA JULY 27, 2009 MOTION HEARING BRIDGET R. MONTERO, CSR 10020, CRR United States Courthouse 312 North Spring Street, Room 435 Los Angeles, California 90012 www.bridgetmontero.com Internal File No. 09057MONDAY, JULY 27, 2009; 10:37 A.M.
THE CLERK: Item No. 9, CV 09-3087, Carlos Collado, et cetera, v. Toyota Motor Sales.
Counsel, your appearances, please.
MS. HARNETT: Good morning, Your Honor. Melissa Harnett, Wasserman, Comden Casselman, on behalf of plaintiff.
MR. MUNROE: Good morning, Your Honor. Geoffrey Munroe on behalf of plaintiff.
MR. CAMPBELL: Good morning, Your Honor. Mark Campbell of Loeb Loeb on behalf of defendant and moving party, Toyota Motor Sales.
THE COURT: I believe that this case is in the wrong pew, and pursuant to 1404 of 28 U.S.C., I'm transferring this matter back to the District of New Jersey, where the plaintiff is a resident.
Will you prepare the order, Counsel?
MR. MUNROE: Your Honor, I don't believe the — you're saying transferring it back to New Jersey?
THE COURT: Yes, I'm transferring it back to New Jersey. That's where it belongs.
MR. MUNROE: I don't believe it was originally in New Jersey.
THE COURT: Well, where — New York.
Where did he buy the car? I thought —
MR. CAMPBELL: Your Honor, the defendant — excuse me. The plaintiff is from New York. There wasn't an original action filed there, but, clearly —
THE COURT: I'm sorry. It goes back to New York, the Southern District of New York. I'm sorry.
Plaintiff is not under California law. He's under New York law. It's going back to New York.
Prepare the order.
Not "back to New York"; it's going to New York in the first place. That's where it should have been.
MS. HARNETT: Your Honor, may I just make one comment?
THE COURT: I beg your pardon?
MS. HARNETT: May I please address the Court?
Your Honor, the defendant is a California domiciled corporation, and so under the applicable law —
THE COURT: The plaintiff is shopping for a district, trying to apply California law to something that belongs in New York.
MS. HARNETT: It's —
THE COURT: It would be New York law that would control his cause of action.
MS. HARNETT: Your Honor, it's a putative class action on behalf of a nationwide class, and the applicable —
THE COURT: He is a resident of New York, and he can't represent everybody in California, under California law. All right.
MS. HARNETT: Thank you, Your Honor.
(Proceedings concluded at 10:39 p.m.)
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct transcript from the stenographic record of the proceedings in the foregoing matter.
Date: July 31, 2009