Case5:10-cv-01172-JW Document15 Filed10/15/10 Page1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9 SAN JOSE DIVISION
10 Vishal Sharma, et al., NO. C 10-01172 JW
11 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING UTAH
United States District Court

v. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER

For the Northern District of California

12 VENUE TO THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

Freedom Investment Club, Ltd., et al.,
13
Defendants.
14 /
15 Vishal Sharma and Wendy Kwong (“Plaintiffs”) bring this action against various companies
16 and individuals1 (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging, inter alia, violations of Section 12(a) of the
17 Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 771, et seq. and breach of contract. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants
18 violated the securities laws by marketing and selling foreclosure properties and never providing
19 Plaintiffs with income or title from the properties as the parties had contracted.
20 Presently before the Court is Defendants Go Invest Wisely, LLC, Pro Financial Services, Inc.
21 and Brad Hess’ (collectively, the “Utah Defendants”) Motion to Transfer Venue.2 The Utah
22 Defendants’ Motion was filed on April 23, 2010. On October 13, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Statement
23 of Non-Opposition to the Motion. (Docket Item No. 14.) The Court finds it appropriate to take the
24 Motion under submission without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).
25
26 1
Freedom Investment Club, Ltd., Mohawk Diversified, LLC, Go Invest Wisely, LLC, Pro
Financial, Inc., T. Harv Eker, Mike Lathigee, Brad Hess and John Hyland.
27
2
(Defendants Go Invest Wisely, LLC, Pro Financial Services, Inc. and Brad Hess’ Notice of
28 Motion and Motion to Transfer Venue, hereafter, “Motion,” Docket Item No. 7.)
 Case5:10-cv-01172-JW Document15 Filed10/15/10 Page2 of 4

1 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court may transfer a case pending before it to “any
2 other district or division where it might have been brought.” To support a motion for transfer, the
3 moving party must establish: (1) that venue is proper in the transferor district; (2) that the transferee
4 district is one where the action might have been brought; and (3) that the transfer will serve the
5 convenience of the parties and witnesses and will promote the interests of justice. See Goodyear
6 Tire & Rubber Co. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 820 F. Supp. 503, 506 (C.D. Cal. 1992).
7 The Utah Defendants contend that the Court should transfer this case to the District of Utah
8 because: (1) venue is proper in Utah; (2) the action could have been brought there; and (3) the
9 transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and will promote the interests of
10 justice. (Motion at 1.) The Court addresses each of the Utah Defendants’ contentions in turn.
11 A. Venue and Personal Jurisdiction in Utah
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

12 The Utah Defendants contend that venue is proper and that the case could have been brought
13 in the District of Utah. (Motion at 7-8.)
14 Securities cases “may be brought in any such district or in the district wherein the defendant
15 is found or is an inhabitant or transacts business.” 15 U.S.C. § 78aa. Moreover, foreign defendants
16 are subject to personal jurisdiction in any federal court, so long as there are minimum contacts with
17 the United States. See Bourassa v. Desrochers, 938 F.2d 1056, 1058 (9th Cir. 1991).
18 Here, many of the business operations related to Plaintiffs’ underlying claims are located in
19 Utah.3 For example, Pro, Go Invest Wisely (“GIW”), and Hess are all located in Utah. (Id.)
20 Moreover, Plaintiffs allege that all Defendants collectively conspired to defraud investors.
21 (Complaint ¶¶ 79-80.) Thus, all Defendants transacted business in Utah via their contacts with the
22 Utah Defendants. Accordingly, the Court finds that venue is proper in the District of Utah and the
23 case could have been brought in that district.
24
25
26
3
(Declaration of Brad Hess in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue ¶¶ 16, 18, 24, 26,
27 hereafter, “Hess Decl.,” Docket Item No. 8.)
28 2
 Case5:10-cv-01172-JW Document15 Filed10/15/10 Page3 of 4

1 B. Convenience of the Forum

2 The Utah Defendants contend that a trial in this district would inconvenience the parties and
3 witnesses. (Motion at 11.)
4 A court considers a number of factors when determining the convenience of a forum,
5 including: (1) the location where the relevant agreements were negotiated and executed; (2) the state
6 that is most familiar with the governing law; (3) the plaintiff’s choice of forum; (4) the respective
7 parties’ contacts with the forum; (5) the contact relating to the plaintiff’s cause of action in the
8 chosen forum; (6) the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums; (7) the availability of
9 compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses; (8) the ease of access to
10 sources of proof; (9) the presence of a forum selection clause; and (10) the relevant public policy of
11 the forum state. Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000).
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

12 Here, in light of Plaintiffs’ statement of non-opposition to the transfer of venue, the Court
13 need not address the Jones factors. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Utah Defendants’ Motion
14 to Transfer Venue to the District of Utah.
15 The Clerk of Court shall immediately transfer this case to the District of Utah and close the
16 file.
17
18 Dated: October 15, 2010
JAMES WARE
19 United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 3
 Case5:10-cv-01172-JW Document15 Filed10/15/10 Page4 of 4

1 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:
2 E. Jeffrey Banchero [email protected]
Perry J. Narancic [email protected]
3 Scott Robert Raber [email protected]
4
Dated: October 15, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
5
6 By: /s/ JW Chambers
Elizabeth Garcia
7 Courtroom Deputy
8
9
10
11
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28