U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
Reliance Ins. Co.
, 758 F.2d 409, 414 (9th Cir. 1985). If venue would be appropriate in the would-betransferee court, then the court must make an “individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.”
, 211 F.3d at 498. Among the non-exclusive factors that a districtcourt may consider in deciding whether a transfer is in the interest of justice are: the location whereany relevant agreements were negotiated and executed; the state that is most familiar with thegoverning law; the plaintiff’s choice of forum; the respective parties’ contacts with the forum; thecontacts relating to the plaintiff’s cause of action in the chosen forum; the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums; the availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses; the ease of access to sources of proof; any forum selection clause;and relevant public policy of the forum state.
at 498-99 (citing
, 487 U.S. at 29-31).II.Motion to dismissPursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint may be dismissed against adefendant for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against that defendant. Amotion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) “tests the legal sufficiency of a claim.”
Navarro v. Block
,250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). Dismissal may be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theoryor the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.
Balistreri v. PacificaPolice Dep’t.
, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). A motion to dismiss should be granted if aplaintiff fails to pled “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl.Corp. v. Twombly
, 550 U.S. 544, 569 (2007). “The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probabilityrequirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
, ___U.S.___,___, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting
, 550 U.S. at556).Allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to thenon-moving party.
Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
, 80 F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th Cir. 1996). “[A] courtmay take judicial notice of ‘matters of public record’” and may also consider “[d]ocuments whosecontents are alleged in a complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but which are notphysically attached to the pleading,” without converting a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)
Case3:10-cv-00488-MHP Document63 Filed11/22/10 Page3 of 17