Fareportal, Inc. v. HNA Group Co., LTD.
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:21-cv-02841
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Fareportal v. Kumar, Judge Rogers discharged the show-cause order, ordered transfer briefing, and granted deadline extensions.
Fareportal, Inc. and pro se defendant Nishith Kumar; the order also sets briefing obligations and extends deadlines for both parties.
What happened
Fareportal, Inc. v. Nishith Kumar now involves only Fareportal’s claim that Kumar violated New Jersey’s Computer Related Offenses Act. The court had questioned its jurisdiction and asked the parties to explain why the case should not be transferred.
After reviewing their responses, the court understood Kumar to request transfer to the District of New Jersey if the case was not dismissed for an inconvenient forum. The court did not decide the transfer request; it ordered Fareportal to respond and Kumar to reply.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers discharged the show-cause order, granted extensions for Kumar’s expert-report deadline and the overall expert-discovery deadline, and required briefing on the possible venue transfer.
The detailed version
- Fareportal, Inc. v. HNA Group Co., LTD. · No. 4:21-cv-02841
- Yvonne Rogers
- May 23, 2024
Background
The case was limited to Fareportal, Inc.’s claim against pro se defendant Nishith Kumar under the New Jersey Computer Related Offenses Act. The court had previously issued an order requiring the parties to explain why the case should not be transferred because Fareportal had not established the bases for federal jurisdiction over the claim. After the parties timely responded, the court discharged that order.
The court also noted that Fareportal’s complaint alleged venue was proper in the Northern District of California because defendants committed tortious acts there while employed by a California-based company. The court said additional evidence submitted with Fareportal’s response cast doubt on whether Kumar removed the hard drive at issue from Fareportal’s offices and brought it to California. The court did not decide whether the complaint established proper venue.
Transfer request and briefing
The court interpreted Kumar’s response as a motion to transfer the case to the District of New Jersey, explaining that pro se filings are read liberally. Kumar sought to have the case heard by a court closer to his residence if the case was not dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds. The court found the existing record insufficiently developed to decide the transfer request.
The court ordered briefing under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which allows transfer to another district where the case could have been brought when transfer would promote convenience and the interests of justice. Fareportal’s opposition was due May 29, 2024, and Kumar’s reply was due June 5, 2024; each brief was limited to five pages.
Other ruling
Kumar had also requested extensions of his deadline to rebut Fareportal’s expert report and of the overall expert-discovery deadline. Because the order required briefing on venue transfer, the court found good cause and granted both extensions.
Disposition
The order discharged the order to show cause, required briefing on Kumar’s construed motion to transfer venue, and granted the requested deadline extensions. It did not resolve the transfer request or the underlying claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.