Nobles v. Kern

Background

Kathleen Nobles sued Fred M. Kern and Plum Holdings, LLC, alleging breach of an August 1, 2015 promissory-note agreement for $1.5 million. The agreement concerns real property owned by Plum Holdings on Monte Verde Street in Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, and is governed by California law. Defendants later filed counterclaims and a crossclaim against Nobles and third-party defendant Brenton Hering.

Defendants moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the case from the Northern District of California to the Middle District of Florida. They argued that the case could have been brought in Florida because Kern lived there and Plum Holdings was entirely owned by Kern. They also argued that Florida would be more convenient for the parties and witnesses.

Court’s Analysis

Under § 1404(a), the party seeking transfer must first show that the case could have been brought in the proposed transferee district. For venue based on where a defendant resides, the relevant residence is generally the defendant’s domicile when the action is filed.

Defendants relied on Kern’s December 31, 2019 declaration stating that he maintained his residence in Florida, had a Florida driver’s license, and was registered to vote there. But the complaint was filed on November 7, 2019, and defendants did not show where Kern resided on that date. The court noted that the record instead indicated that Kern may have resided in Carmel, California, including because he stated that he intended to live at the Carmel property until his death and was served there shortly after the case was filed.

Disposition

The court held that defendants had not met their burden to show that the case could have been brought in Florida. Because that threshold requirement was not established, the court did not reach the convenience factors. Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue and terminated the motion docketed as ECF 44.