# Siegler v. Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc.

> District Court, S.D. California · August 30, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10079468

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. California
- **Decided:** August 30, 2019
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10079468

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
SARA ELIZABETH SIEGLER and CASE NO. 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB
12 Sara Elizabeth Siegler,

13 Plaintiffs,
ORDER DENYING
14 vs. EMERGENCY MOTION FOR
EXPEDITED ORDER FOR
15 SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS, INC., CHANGE OF VENUE
TNK THERAPEUTICS, INC., BDL
16 PRODUCTS, INC., CARGENIX [ECF NO. 133.]
HOLDINGS LLC, TUFTS MEDICAL
17 CENTER, PROSPECT
CHARTERCARE ROGER WILLIAMS
18 MEDICAL CENTER LLC, HENRY JI,
RICHARD PAUL JUNGHANS,
19 STEVEN C. KATZ, and THE BOARD
OF DIRECTORS OF SORRENTO
20 THERAPEUTICS, INC.,
21 Defendants.
22
On August 27, 2019, pro se Plaintiff Sara Elizabeth Siegler filed an
23
‘emergency’ motion for a change of venue, requesting a ruling by August 30, 2019.
24
(ECF No. 133.) Upon review of the motion, and in light of applicable law, the
25
motion is DENIED for the reasons articulated below.
26
I. Background
27
28
1 On July 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed the instant action in the Southern District of
2 California. After extensive motions practice, the Court on August 2, 2019, granted
3 dismissal with prejudice on all of the claims in Plaintiff’s second amended
4 complaint. (ECF No. 126.)
5 On August 26, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiff’s sixth omnibus motion
6 which requested (1) an extension on statutory deadline to file her Rule 59(e) motion
7 against the dismissal order entered August 2, 2019, and (2) leave to file a motion
8 for reconsideration which would exceed the 25 page limit prescribed by the local
9 civil rules. The Court denied the first request and reaffirmed the statutory August
10 30, 2019, deadline because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 expressly forbids the
11 Court to provide the extension requested. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2) (“A court
12
must not extend the time to act under Rules 50(b) and (d), 52(b), 59(b), (d), and (e),
13
and 60(b).”). The Court granted the request to depart from the 25 page limit; in the
14
absence of a requested brief length, the Court permitted a filing of up to 35 pages.
15
Plaintiff’s instant motion for change of venue is predicated on her
16
disagreement with the August 26, 2019 Order. She seeks a venue change out of
17
this district because she believes the Court has not afforded her adequate
18
accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and because she insists
19
that the Court and Court staff have conspired to retaliate against her, or subject her
20
to biased and prejudicial treatment on account of her pro se status. Plaintiff does
21
not specify where she would like the case to be transferred to, or where believes
22
venue is proper, stating only that the case could be transferred to any federal
23
district, and should be directed to a court that would be able to accommodate her.
24 I. Transfer of Venue
25 Plaintiff’s motion fails as a request for a change of venue. At worst, the
26 request is a dilatory tactic to avoid the effects of the Court’s August 2, 2019 order
27 dismissing the entirety of the action. See Silver Valley Partners, LLC v. De Motte,
28 No. C05-5590 RBL, 2006 WL 2711764, at *5 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 21, 2006)
1 (warning against late-blooming requests for transfer brought merely as dilatory
2 practice). According to Plaintiff, she seeks a transfer venue so that she can set her
3 yet-to-be filed motion for reconsideration before a different Court. (ECF No. 133-
4 1, at 8.) That is no basis for transfer.
5 At best, Plaintiff’s request for a venue change is waived as inadequately
6 briefed. Most critically, Plaintiff has not requested transfer to any specific venue.
7 To support a motion for transfer of venue, the moving party must establish
8 “that venue is proper in the transferor district; that the transferee district is one
9 where the action might have originally been brought; and that transfer will serve the
10 convenience of the parties and witnesses and will promote the interests of justice.”
11 Vu v. Ortho–McNeil Pharm., Inc., 602 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1155–56 (N.D. Cal.2009)
12
(quoting Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 820 F.Supp.
13
503, 506 (C.D. Cal. 1992)).
14
Once venue is determined to be proper in both districts, “[t]he Court must
15
consider public factors relating to ‘the interest of justice’ and private factors
16
relating to ‘the convenience of the parties and witnesses.’” Decker Coal Co. v.
17
Commonw. Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). Such factors include:
18
(1) plaintiff’s choice of forum; (2) convenience of the parties; (3) convenience of
19
the witnesses; (4) ease of access to the evidence; (5) familiarity of each forum with
20
an applicable law; (6) feasibility of consolidation with other claims; (7) any local
21
interest in the controversy; and (8) the relative court congestion and time of trial in
22
each forum. Vu, 602 F. Supp. 2d at 1156.
23
Here, Plaintiff has provided no justification for element three. Significantly,
24
it was Plaintiff herself who brought the case in the Southern District of California;
25
in other words, this was Plaintiff’s own choice of forum. As master of her case,
26
Plaintiff does not stand in the position of the usual transfer of venue movant, who is
27
presumed to be a defendant. See Decker Coal Co., 805 F.2d at 843 (“The defendant
28
1 must make a strong showing of inconvenience to warrant upsetting the plaintiff’s
2 choice of forum.”). Plaintiff cannot show transfer is in the interest of justice merely
3 because she hopes another court would reach a different conclusion on a dispositive
4 motion after it has been decided.
5 Moreover, the defending parties have invested considerable resources in
6 responding to her suit in the instant district, filing pro hac vice requests and
7 litigating the issues in Plaintiff’s chosen forum. Plaintiff has offered no explanation
8 of the prejudice or convenience that would befall the defendants if venue was
9 transferred, nor could she without specifying which venue she prefers.
10 In addition, the Court has spent considerable time familiarizing itself with
11 Plaintiff’s allegations. It has considerable institutional knowledge of the facts and
12
procedural history of this litigation. It has issued an abundance of orders
13
accommodating Plaintiff’s filing requests (for extensions of time, for leave to file
14
oversize briefs) and permitted her access to the CM/ECF system so that she might
15
directly file. It has gone to considerable lengths to comprehend and construe
16
liberally Plaintiff’s prolix, perplexing, and often procedurally-deficient filings in
17
light of her pro se status. And when it has ruled on dispositive motions, the Court
18
has painstakingly enumerated, at a level of guidance and specificity not ordinarily
19
accorded to counseled parties, the precise reasons Plaintiff’s claims were
20
unavailing, so that she might amend and cure. The Court has not acted in a biased
21
or prejudiced manner toward Plaintiff; in fact it has striven to do quite the opposite.
22
If Plaintiff believed there was another venue where she would receive greater
23
solicitude and accommodations, she could have identified one in her motion.
24
Seeing none, and finding the request for transfer both dilatory and inadequately
25
briefed, the Court will deny the request.
26 Transfer is not appropriate.
27 II. Motion for Reconsideration
28
1 Plaintiff has not set forth any newly discovered evidence, change in
2 controlling law, or clear error or manifest injustice. To the extent that the motion
3 for change of venue constitutes a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s August
4 26, 2019 order, it is also DENIED.
5 | I. Conclusion
6 For the above reasons, the emergency motion is DENIED. (ECF No. 133.)
7 IT IS SO ORDERED.
g || Dated: August 30, 2019 7 sale As
9 Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel
10 United States District Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4- CASE NO. 18-CV-01681-GPC-BGS

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10079468. Public record. Not legal advice.