Cribier v. Compass, Inc.

Background

Michael Cribier filed a proposed nationwide class action against Compass, Inc., alleging that Compass and contracted real estate agents knowingly and negligently made unsolicited calls to potential clients whose numbers were listed on the National Do Not Call Registry, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Cribier alleged that Compass agents called him after he listed a home in San Diego on the San Diego Multiple Listing Services. The agents had San Diego area codes and apparently operated from a San Diego branch of a Compass subsidiary, Compass California III, Inc. Compass stated that this subsidiary operated in Southern California and had no operations in Northern California. Compass was formed under Delaware law and had its principal place of business in New York City.

Cribier filed the case in the Northern District of California. The opinion states that no party resided in that district and that none of the events giving rise to the claims occurred there. Cribier's current residency was described as unclear, although his counsel represented that his primary residence was in Las Vegas, Nevada when the complaint was filed.

Motion and venue analysis

Compass moved to dismiss for improper venue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), or alternatively to transfer the case to the Southern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Cribier opposed dismissal and requested transfer to either the Southern District of New York, where Compass is headquartered, or the District of Nevada, where he apparently resides.

The court held that Cribier had not shown that venue was proper in the Northern District of California. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, venue can generally be proper where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, or, when no other district qualifies, where the defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction.

The court rejected venue under § 1391(b)(1) because Compass did not reside in the Northern District for purposes of this case. The court explained that Compass's business in the San Francisco Bay Area did not establish general jurisdiction, and that the subsidiary connected to the alleged calls had no presence or operations in Northern California. The court also found no specific jurisdiction because Cribier's own claim arose from calls connected to San Diego, not from Compass's activities in the Northern District.

The court rejected venue under § 1391(b)(2) because the alleged calls and related conduct did not have a substantial connection to the Northern District. The court also found no basis for using § 1391(b)(3), which applies only when venue is unavailable under the other venue provisions in every district.

Transfer ruling

Because the Northern District was an improper venue, the court could dismiss the case or transfer it to a district where it could have been brought if transfer served the interests of justice. The court chose transfer rather than dismissal and ordered that the action be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California for all further proceedings.

The court concluded that Southern California was preferable to New York or Nevada because the alleged calls were made by agents operating there, the relevant property was in San Diego, and access to witnesses and evidence would be easier. The court also found that Southern California had a greater local interest in alleged conduct by a real estate company operating in that district. The court gave Cribier's choice of the Northern District little weight because that district was not a proper venue.

Disposition

The action was transferred to the Southern District of California. The court vacated all future hearings.