Overview

HOLDINGS: [1]-In a dispute over plaintiff’s involvement in a joint venture which sell cruises and resort vacations, the court denied motion to transfer venue because great weight was accorded to plaintiff’s choice of forum, and defendants did not show how the District of Delaware was more convenient to the parties or to any potential witnesses, who all appeared to reside elsewhere other than stating the individual defendants consented to personal jurisdiction at Delaware. All of plaintiff’s claims primarily arose out of allegedly fraudulent communications made by individual defendants from outside California to defendant, while he was residing in Sacramento, California. Accordingly, venue was proper in the Eastern District of California because it was a judicial district in which substantial part of the events or omissions that gave rise to the claims occurred, 28 U.S.C.S. § 1391(b)(2). The California litigation attorney made a motion to protect the party’s interest.

Outcome

Litigation attorney San Diego Motion for transfer of venue denied.