Little v. Pacific Seafood Procurement, LLC

Background

Defendants asked the Northern District of California to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of Oregon under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). That statute allows a court to transfer a case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. Defendants did not dispute that the Northern District of California had personal jurisdiction over them or that venue was proper there.

The case is a proposed class action. Brand Little sought to represent crabbers from California, Oregon, and Washington, including a proposed California subclass pursuing California state-law claims. The opinion states that Little docks his fishing vessel in San Francisco, fishes for Dungeness crab exclusively under a California permit, fished during the proposed class period in coastal waters between Monterey County and the Oregon border, and landed and sold all of his crab in San Francisco.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Little’s choice of forum deserved more than minimal consideration because he had extensive California contacts connected to his claims. Although a named plaintiff’s choice receives less weight in a proposed class action than in an individual case, the court found that the case had meaningful connections to California and that the facts did not suggest forum shopping.

The court acknowledged that transfer would be easier for the defendants, which the opinion describes as Oregon-based companies, but found that litigating in Oregon would be less convenient for Little. Because transfer would shift the inconvenience from one side to the other rather than eliminate it, this factor did not support transfer.

The court also found significant California-related interests. California accounted for 21.2% of Dungeness crab landings among California, Oregon, and Washington from 2019 through 2021, and California issued more Dungeness crab fishing permits per season than either Oregon or Washington. The court noted that the permit comparison might not accurately show the number of crabbers because of permitting reciprocity between Oregon and Washington, but concluded that California clearly had a significant number of crabbers. The complaint was also most specific about the off-boat market for crab caught off several California counties within the Northern District, and Little proposed a California subclass.

The court gave weight to the convenience of third-party witnesses but found that defendants had not named any such witnesses, stated where they were located, or explained their expected testimony and relevance. That lack of detail counted against defendants, who had the burden of supporting the transfer motion. The court also gave little weight to the location of defendants’ documents in Oregon because technological advances generally make transporting or retrieving documents less burdensome.

Disposition

The court concluded that the relevant factors did not tip strongly in defendants’ favor, as required to disturb the plaintiff’s choice of forum. Judge Alex G. Tse denied defendants’ motion to transfer venue.