Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Mary Charles Robinson Austin, Case No.: 26-cv-3097-RSH-GC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE 14 City of San Diego, et al., [ECF No. 4] 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 Pending before the Court is a motion to transfer venue from this district to the Central 21 District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), filed by plaintiff Mary Charles Robinson 22 Austin. ECF No. 4. As set forth below, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion. 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 On May 18, 2026, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against defendant City of San Diego. 25 ECF No. 1. The Complaint brings claims for: (1) violation of due process; (2) unlawful 26 search and seizure; (3) taking without just compensation; (4) conspiracy to deprive civil 27 rights; (5) municipal liability; (6) elder abuse; and (7) violation of the Bane Act. Id. at 10- 28 16. On the same day the Complaint was filed, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application for a 1 temporary restraining order (ECF No. 3) and a motion to transfer venue to the Central 2 District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (ECF No. 4). On August 13, 2026, 3 the Court denied Plaintiff’s TRO application. ECF No. 8 at 1. 4 II. MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE 5 a. Legal Standard 6 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides that “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, 7 in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district 8 or division where it might have been brought[.]” The decision is left to the discretion of 9 the district court. See Ventress v. Japan Airlines, 486 F.3d 1111, 1118 (9th Cir. 2007). It 10 requires an “individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.” 11 Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 23 (1988). 12 Courts consider several factors in determining whether to transfer a case, including: 13 (1) the plaintiff’s choice of forum; (2) the convenience of the parties; (3) the convenience 14 of the witnesses; (4) the location of books and records; (5) which forum’s law applies; (6) 15 the interests of justice; and (7) administrative considerations. Allstar Mktg. Grp., LLC v. 16 Your Store Online, LLC, 666 F. Supp. 2d 1109, 1130 (C.D. Cal. 2009). “The burden is on 17 the moving party to establish that a transfer will allow a case to proceed more conveniently 18 and better serve the interests of justice.” Id. at 1131. 19 b. Discussion 20 Plaintiff argues that this action should be transferred because the convenience factors 21 are at a minimum neutral, the interests of justice require transfer, and public interest factors 22 favor transfer. ECF No. 4. Regardless of whether this action could have been brought in 23 the Central District of California, the Court finds that none of the relevant factors weigh in 24 favor of a transfer. 25 First, Plaintiff chose to file this action in this forum. ECF No. 1. The same day the 26 Complaint was filed, Plaintiff asked the Court to move this lawsuit to a different district. 27 ECF No. 4. Plaintiff’s choice of forum is thus afforded limited weight in this analysis. See 28 Kawamoto v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 225 F. Supp. 2d 1209, 1216 n.9 (D. Haw. 2002) (“The 1 court does not give much deference to the plaintiff’s second choice of forum . . . . If the 2 plaintiff had wanted to file this action in [the second choice], it could have done so.”) 3 (citation omitted). 4 Second and third, the Central District is not more convenient for the Parties and the 5 witnesses. Plaintiff claims that the convenience factors are at a minimum neutral, because 6 the Central District is “a manageable distance” from San Diego and witnesses can be 7 compelled to testify “regardless of venue[.]” ECF No. 4 at 7. However, Plaintiff asserts 8 that both Parties reside in this district and many non-party witnesses would be employees 9 of the City of San Diego. Id. The Court finds that the convenience factors favor this district, 10 and Plaintiff offers no reason to conclude otherwise. 11 Fourth, the location of books and records does not favor transfer. Plaintiff argues 12 that the key evidence in this case consists of city records, official documents, and 13 correspondence, but the records “can be produced in any district” because they are 14 “maintained in electronic format[.]” Id. at 8. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that ease of 15 access to evidence is not a predominant concern due to advances in technology. See Byler 16 v. Deluxe Corporation, 222 F. Supp. 3d 885, 906-07 (S.D. Cal. 2016). Although it is not a 17 predominant consideration, the Court gives some weight to the fact that the evidence in 18 this case would largely consist of city records that are located in this district. See Hawkins 19 v. Gerber Prods. Co., 924 F. Supp. 2d 1208, 1216 (S.D. Cal. 2013). 20 Fifth, the factor regarding “which forum’s law applies” is neutral regarding transfer 21 from one California district court to another. 22 Sixth, the interests of justice do not favor transfer. “The ‘interest[s] of justice’ 23 include such concerns as ensuring speedy trials, trying related litigation together, and 24 having a judge who is familiar with the applicable law try the case.” Allstar Mktg. Grp., 25 LLC, 666 F. Supp. 2d at 1134 (citation omitted). Plaintiff claims that the interests of justice 26 require transfer because Defendant’s local influence creates an appearance of bias. ECF 27 No. 4 at 5. Plaintiff further argues that because her claims involve alleged government 28 misconduct they should be “adjudicat[ed] in a forum that is geographically and 1 institutionally removed from the defendant’s sphere of influence.” Id. at 6. However, 2 Plaintiff cites no authority establishing that the presence of a local or municipal defendant 3 creates an appearance of unfairness or otherwise supports transferring venue. See id. at 5- 4 6. Plaintiff does not explain what the alleged bias or influence is or how it would justify 5 transferring venue. See Fan v. Nevada ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Nevada Sys. of Higher 6 Educ., No. 3:24-CV-00427-MMD-CLB, 2025 WL 1745670, at *4-5 (D. Nev. June 24, 7 2025) (denying a motion to transfer venue that was premised on “institutional 8 entanglement” and “structural unfairness”). 9 Seventh, administrative considerations are neutral. This factor primarily looks to 10 “whether a trial may be speedier in another court because of its less crowded docket.” Saleh 11 v. Titan Corp., 361 F. Supp. 2d 1152, 1167 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (quoting Gates Learjet Corp. 12 v. Jensen, 743 F.2d 1325, 1337 (9th Cir. 1984)). The Central and Southern Districts 13 maintain a similar amount of total filings per judgeship.1 14 Plaintiff has not shown that any factors weigh in favor of transfer from this district 15 to the Central District of California. Plaintiff has failed to carry her burden, and the Court 16 declines to transfer venue. 17 III. SERVICE OF PROCESS 18 Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: “[i]f a defendant is not 19 served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after 20 notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or 21 order that service be made within a specified time.” Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on May 18, 22 2026 but has not yet filed a proof of service. The Court grants Plaintiff an additional thirty 23 days following the date of this order to properly effectuate service of the summons and 24 Complaint. 25 26 27 1 See Admin. Office of the U.S. Courts, U.S. District Courts — Judicial Business 2026 tbl.X-1A (June 30, 2026), https://www.uscourts.gov/data- 28 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's motion to transfer venue [ECF No. 4] is 3 || DENIED. 4 Plaintiff shall properly effectuate service of the summons and Complaint within 5 || thirty (30) days of the date of this order. If Plaintiff has not effectuated service and filed 6 || valid proof of service by that date, or sought and obtained a further extension of time to do 7 ||so establishing good cause for failure to timely serve, the Court will dismiss this action 8 || without prejudice. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 10, 2026 Jobut ¢ [oer Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28