Garner v. Phoenix Air Group

Background

On February 24, 2026, the court granted Phoenix Air Group, Inc.’s motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). That statute allows a federal court to transfer a case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The court found that the case had almost no ties to the Northern District of California, that its limited California connections were outweighed by its connections to the Northern District of Georgia, Rome Division, and that two of the three decedents had agreed to forum-selection clauses naming the Georgia division as the federal venue.

The plaintiffs then obtained a temporary stay of the transfer and filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. A motion for leave asks the court for permission to file the underlying motion. The plaintiffs argued that transfer could cause a prejudicial change in the substantive law applicable to their claims, which the opinion identifies as maritime tort claims.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown any of the three grounds for reconsideration under the Northern District of California’s local rules. They did not identify a material difference in fact or law from what had been presented before the transfer ruling; newly emerged material facts or a change in law; or a manifest failure to consider material facts or decisive legal arguments.

The court said it had already considered the plaintiffs’ concern about a change in applicable law and had found that concern insufficient to overcome the forum-selection clauses and the case’s limited ties to California. The court explained that Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit decisions provide rules for deciding which law applies after a case is transferred under § 1404(a). It also noted an exception discussed in a Supreme Court decision when transfer results from enforcing a forum-selection clause. The court said the receiving court would be able to apply those rules and that the transferor court did not need to conduct an extensive comparison of which jurisdiction’s substantive law would be more favorable to the plaintiffs.

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ reliance on older cases in which transfers were conditioned on stipulations about the statute of limitations, explaining that those cases predated the later Supreme Court choice-of-law framework. The court also stated that an antitrust decision cited by the plaintiffs did not apply to their maritime tort claims because the antitrust analysis concerned the competitive functioning of commercial markets.

Disposition

Judge Alex G. Tse denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. The Clerk of the Court was directed to transfer the case to the Northern District of Georgia, Rome Division. The court also stated that it would not delay the transfer to allow the plaintiffs to seek certification of the transfer order for an immediate appeal or to file a petition for mandamus relief. The opinion does not decide the ultimate merits of the plaintiffs’ maritime tort claims.