United States District Court, N.D. California
HUNG V. VU, D.D.S., a professional dental corporation, d/b/a VU ORTHODONTICS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
I CREDIT, LLC, d/b/a iCARE FINANCIAL, Defendant. v.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
AND VACATING HEARING
WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
action for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, defendant moves to dismiss or, in the alternative,
transfer to a proper venue. For the reasons stated herein,
the motion to transfer venue is Granted.
Oral argument on this matter will be of marginal assistance.
The hearing scheduled for June 29, 2017, is therefore
I Care Credit, LLC, a Georgia company, directed
advertisements through fax to plaintiff Hung Vu, who resides
in the Central District of California. Plaintiff contends
that defendant's faxes violated the TCPA, which prohibits
unsolicited advertisements through fax. On February 16, 2017,
plaintiff commenced this putative class action against
defendant for (1) injunctive relief for violation of TCPA and
(2) conversion. Defendant now moves to dismiss for improper
venue or, in the alternative, transfer to a proper venue.
defendant may move to dismiss a claim for improper venue
under FRCP 12(b)(3). Under Section 1391(b) of Title 28, venue
is proper in “(1) a judicial district in which any
defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the
State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial
district in which a substantial part of the events or
omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial
part of property that is the subject of the action is
situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action
may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any
judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the
court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such
defendant does not reside in this state, so this claim does
not meet the first prong to establish proper venue.
substantial events giving rise to this claim did not occur in
this district, so this claim does not meet the second prong.
Plaintiff contends that substantial events occurred in this
district because defendant directed faxes to unnamed class
members residing in this district. This contention improperly
assumes that unnamed parties suffice to meet the venue
requirements in a class action. The undersigned judge has
previously noted that in class actions, the named plaintiff
must satisfy venue provisions. Briggs v. United
States, No. C 07-05760 WHA, 2009 WL 113387, at *5 (N.D.
Cal. Jan. 16, 2009) (“[C]ourts generally hold that the
named plaintiffs must satisfy the applicable venue
requirements . . . .”). Plaintiff has not met this
requests judicial notice of seven complaints stating claims
against defendant for sending unsolicited faxes (Dkt. No. 20,
Exh. 3-9). These exhibits do not establish that substantial
events occurred between plaintiff and defendant in this
district. Judicial notice of these exhibits is Denied
also requests judicial notice of three webpages showing
businesses from this district providing positive reviews for
defendant or advertising defendant's services (Dkt. No.
20, Exh 10-12). Plaintiff requests judicial notice of these
exhibits to establish that defendant had substantial
relationships with businesses in this district. Even if these
exhibits were recognized, they would not establish that
substantial events occurred between plaintiff and defendant
in this forum. Judicial notice of these exhibits is
Denied as moot.
there are other districts in which this action may be
brought, including the Northern District of Georgia, where
defendant resides, or the Central District of California,
where plaintiff received faxes from defendant.