United States District Court, D. Oregon
RAMON DE JESUS PINEDA, MIRIAN DIAZ PINEDA, TIM NAY, in his capacity as Conservator for FRANKLIN PINEDA, ANGELA PINEDA DE FIGUEROA, as Guardian Ad Litem for ANDY PINEDA, Plaintiffs,
GEREN RATLIFF, PRIDE TRANSPORT, INC., HOWARD PELS, PROGRESSIVE LOGISTICS, INC., doing business as GILTNER, INC., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
F. BECKERMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Ramon De Jesus Pineda (“Ramon”), Mirian Diaz
Pineda (“Mirian”), Tim Nay (in his capacity as
Conservator for Franklin Pineda (“Franklin”)),
and Angela Pineda De Figueroa (as Guardian Ad Litem for Andy
Pineda (“Andy”)) (collectively,
“Plaintiffs”) bring this personal injury action
against Defendants Geren Ratliff (“Ratliff”),
Pride Transport, Inc. (“Pride”), Howard Pels
(“Pels”), and Progressive Logistics, Inc., doing
business as Giltner, Inc. (“Giltner”). (ECF No.
before the Court is Ratliff and Pride's (together,
“Defendants”) motion to transfer venue to the
Pendleton Division under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). (ECF No.
28.) Alternatively, Defendants move to transfer venue under
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). (ECF No. 28.) The Court has
jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and
all parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a U.S.
Magistrate Judge under Fed.R.Civ.P. 73(b). For the following
reasons, the Court denies Defendants' motion to transfer
allege that on January 7, 2017, Ratliff was driving
southbound on Highway 97 in Sherman County, Oregon in a
semi-truck owned by Pride during whiteout conditions. (Compl.
¶ 7.) At around the same time and in the same area, Pels
was driving northbound on Highway 97 in a semi-truck owned by
Giltner. (Compl. ¶ 8.) Ramon and his three
passengers-Mirian, Franklin, and Andy-were traveling just
behind Pels in a Toyota 4Runner. (Compl. ¶ 9.)
approximately 2 p.m., Ratliff's and Pels' semi-trucks
collided with each other. (Compl. ¶ 10.) Due to the
impact from the collision, Ratliff's semi-truck swerved
into the northbound lane and hit the Toyota 4Runner. (Compl.
and his three passengers sustained serious injuries. Ramon
had “broken bones in both legs, ” “multiple
rib fractures, ” and a “kidney disorder.”
(Compl. ¶ 12.) Mirian suffered a “broken
collarbone, ” “broken bones in her hand and leg,
” and “multiple rib fractures.” (Compl.
¶ 15.) Franklin's injuries included a
“fractured humerus, ” a “lacerated spleen
and kidney, ” “vertebral fracture, ” and
“acute respiratory failure.” (Compl. ¶ 20.)
Andy suffered “bruising, contusions, and
abrasions.” (Compl. ¶ 22.)
August 6, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Multnomah
County Circuit Court, alleging five claims for negligence
against the defendants. (ECF No. 1.) On September 6, 2018,
Defendants timely removed this case under 28 U.S.C. §
1332. (ECF No. 1.) This motion followed. (ECF No. 28.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Transfer of Venue Under 28 U.S.C. §
district court determines that a case has been filed in a
district or division where venue is improper, it may either
dismiss or transfer the case to a proper venue. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1406(a). Venue is generally proper in any
“judicial district in which a substantial part of the
events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a
substantial part of the property that is the subject of the
action is situated.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). By
contrast, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) “expressly provides
that the proper venue of a removed action is the district
court of the United States for the district and division
embracing the place where such action is pending.”
Polizzi v. Cowles Magazines, Inc., 345 U.S. 663, 666
(1953) (quotation marks omitted).
Transfer of Venue Under 28 U.S.C. §
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court may transfer a
civil case to any district or division in which the parties
could have originally brought the case after considering
“the convenience of parties and witnesses” and
the “interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. §
1404(a). At the first step of the analysis, a district court
must find that “the requested venue is one in which the
case might have originally been brought[.]” Summit
Foods, Inc. v. Viking Packaging Techs., Inc., No.
3:18-cv-1470-SI, 2018 WL 4690364, at *4 (D. Or. Sept. 28,
2018). At the second step, courts must “weigh the
relevant factors and decide whether, on balance, a transfer
would serve ‘the convenience of parties and