Judge Albright denied defendant Google’s motion to transfer. He initially found “many discrepancies and vague assertions that appear to be unreliable” in Google’s venue declaration, after which he held an in-person hearing to have the declarants testify. The court concluded that “based on that in person assessment of credibility, the court found the witnesses to be unreliable” for reasons specified in the opinion.
Judge Payne recommended denial of defendant Amazon’s motion to dismiss, finding that venue was proper based on the facts alleged for this stage of the lawsuit, noting that the defendant’s objections relied on disputed facts regarding the use of the accused products in the EDTX. The court also rejected the claim that a forum selection clause require the case to be brought in Washington, and that venue was “clearly more convenient” there.
In this pair of opinions addressing motions by two defendants, Judge Gilstrap granted the motions to dismiss, but with leave to replead, denied a motion seeking to find the defendant’s US subsidiary a necessary party, and denied the motion to transfer.
I used this Gerry Spence saying a few years ago when arguing before EDTX Judge Trey Schroeder in Texarkana that a plaintiff’s maintaining an argument that venue was proper after the facts had disclosed otherwise was sanctionable. Sounds like Judge Albright might have been thinking the same thing.
Slightly weird facts here regarding where the relevant documents were. The plaintiff’s documents were in Waco, but had been moved there recently from California. The defendant was seeking a transfer to Austin, but didn’t identify any evidence, electronic or physical, there.
It was there – I had to say it. Judge Albright granted Defendant Lyft’s motion to transfer, noting that the plaintiff failed to identify any specific relevant employees or evidence in the Western District of Texas. “As a result, no factors weigh against transfer, while the relative ease of access to sources of proof, availability of compulsory process, convenience for willing witnesses, and local interest factors all weigh in favor of transfer.”
Judge Albright granted Apple’s motion to transfer this case to the Northern District of California, finding that it had met its burden to show that that district was a clearly more convenient forum.
Judge Albright denied defendant Samsung’s motion to transfer the plaintiff’s claims against it to the Northern District of California, finding that the willing witness factor, which the Federal Circuit has deemed the “most important factor in transfer analysis,” weighed against transfer.
WDTX Judge Xavier Rodriguez granted Google’s motion to transfer. The court had earlier denied a motion for discovery into the extent to which Google employees in WDTX worked on the accused technology, noting that even if the products were made in the WDTX, the record showed that they were developed – and the relevant suppliers – were located in California.
Judge Albright denied Meta’s motion to transfer to California, but granted the motion to transfer to Austin since both parties agreed that that would be more convenient– and the case will remain on his docket. Of interest, the parties’ assertions and the Court’s conclusions are heavily redacted, meaning that a future litigant against Meta will have a hard time identifying what it asserted and what contentions the court found wanting – especially regarding witnesses – in this prior case.
