Mandel v. Hafermann

Background

Todd Mandel brought claims against Holly Hafermann, Vanessa Ostovich, Elliot Taylor, Paul Rothenberg, and Rothenberg PC. The claims included defamation, false light, wrongful use of civil proceedings, abuse of process, breach of contract, promissory estoppel, wrongful discharge, alienation of affections, conversion, theft, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional interference with economic relations, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and conspiracy.

The action was removed to federal court on August 9, 2019. Hafermann, Ostovich, and Taylor moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the case from Utah to the Northern District of California. Other motions to dismiss were also pending, but the opinion states those motions were not before the court.

Legal standard

Under § 1404(a), a court may transfer a civil action to another federal district where the case could originally have been brought, or to a district to which all parties consent, when transfer would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice. The moving parties had to establish both that California was a proper forum and that transfer would make the litigation more convenient and fair.

Court’s analysis

The court determined that the action could have been brought in the Northern District of California because the defendants were California residents and Hafermann and Taylor lived in that district. The court gave Mandel’s choice of Utah limited weight. It found that he was domiciled in Tennessee for purposes of its review based on his sworn statement, although it also stated that his choice would receive less deference because the case had been removed from state court and most relevant events occurred in California.

The witness-access factor strongly favored transfer. The defendants identified 48 witnesses, including 38 who lived in California and others who lived in Oregon, New York, or Wisconsin. None lived in Utah, and the court found that many could not be compelled to attend trial there. The court also found that the cost of presenting evidence would likely be substantially lower in California.

The court found that docket congestion slightly favored transfer because the Northern District of California had shorter reported times from filing to disposition and from filing to trial than the District of Utah. It also found that the conflict-of-laws and local-interest factor favored transfer because most of the events underlying Mandel’s claims occurred in California. Although Mandel argued that his alienation-of-affections claim existed only under Utah law, the court concluded that a California federal court could apply Utah law if the claim was viable.

The court further explained that § 1404(a) permits transfer of the entire action even if the transferring court lacks personal jurisdiction over a defendant. It therefore concluded that any personal-jurisdiction issue involving Rothenberg and Rothenberg PC did not prevent transfer.

Disposition

After weighing the relevant factors, the court held that transfer was appropriate and granted the defendants’ motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California. Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead issued the order under a referral from District Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. The order decided venue only; it did not decide the merits of Mandel’s claims.