Christopher Reid Thomas v. Ampersand, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Ampersand, Inc.’s motion to dismiss for improper venue but granted its alternative motion to transfer the action to the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The court concluded that venue was proper in California because Ampersand waived its personal-jurisdiction objection, but that the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice favored transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

Holdings

1. Ampersand waived any objection to personal jurisdiction by failing to raise it in its motion to dismiss or transfer, its first opportunity to do so. Because Ampersand was therefore subject to personal jurisdiction in the Northern District of California, it was deemed to reside there under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2), making venue proper under § 1391(b)(1).
2. The Eastern District of Wisconsin was a district where the action might have been brought because Ampersand's principal office was located in Waukesha County, Wisconsin, within that district.
3. The balance of relevant factors favored transferring the action to the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Although Thomas's choice of forum and California's local interest weighed against transfer, the convenience of the parties and especially the witnesses, as well as the location of relevant evidence, weighed in favor of transfer; other factors were neutral.

Questions Presented

1. Whether venue was improper in the Northern District of California because Ampersand had not waived an objection to personal jurisdiction and therefore did not reside there for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1).
2. Whether the action should be transferred to the Eastern District of Wisconsin under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.

Disposition

other