/>iWith the volume of lawsuits filed by plaintiffs under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, every federal jurisdiction gets its share of cases. It can seem like counsel for plaintiffs deliberately choose whichever jurisdiction is best for federal circuit case law (i.e., forum shopping), convenience for the plaintiffs, or inconvenience for defendants. That is exactly what plaintiffs are doing. However, there are limits to the whims of plaintiffs and their counsel.
An interesting ruling by the Northern District of California transferred a case to a jurisdiction that neither party appears to have sought. In Cribier v. Compass Inc., No. 25-CV-02815-WHO, 2025 WL 1939869 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2025), a Nevada-based plaintiff filed a lawsuit against a New York corporation in… California. Id. at *1.
Quick background—for venue to be proper for the filing of a lawsuit against a single defendant, the defendant needs to reside in the district where the lawsuit is filed or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim needs to have occurred in that district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)–(2). For a corporate defendant, this means that the company needs to be incorporated or have their principal place of business located in that district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). Practically, this means that a TCPA plaintiff can usually file a lawsuit in the jurisdiction where they were located when the plaintiff allegedly received violative calls or text messages.
There are two options when a plaintiff files a lawsuit in an incorrect or particularly incorrect forum. A defendant can either seek to dismiss the action for improper venue, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406, or seek to transfer the action to a more proper venue, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404.
To actually get an action dismissed due to its filing in an improper venue, a plaintiff generally needs to make a mistake in filing the lawsuit. Plaintiffs do that. But usually, their counsel will ensure that basic procedural requirements are met prior to filing a lawsuit in a particular jurisdiction.
Cribier is the prototypical case for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(3). The plaintiff did not have a basis for filing the lawsuit in that jurisdiction. Cribier, 2025 WL 1939869, at *1. The plaintiff and his counsel appeared to have had a miscommunication regarding where the plaintiff lived. Id. at *2. The plaintiff said he lived in California. Id. So, plaintiff’s counsel filed the lawsuit in California. Id. Then, his counsel appears to have subsequently realized that he lives in Nevada. Id. However, because the defendant sought to dismiss the action under Rule 12(b)(3) or alternatively to transfer the action, the court elected to do the latter. Id. at *1.
It can actually be a good thing for defendants to seek to transfer an action rather than dismiss an action for improper venue. Where a case is being vigorously pursued by eager counsel for plaintiffs, a dismissal for improper venue will just lead to the refiling of the lawsuit. It is an easy procedural hurdle that says nothing about the viability of the plaintiff’s claims.
Regarding transfer, the Cribier defendant sought to transfer the case to either New York, where the defendant is located, or Nevada, where the plaintiff is (actually) located. Cribier, 2025 WL 1939869, at *1. The court decided to look at where the calls appeared to have been placed out of, rather than where the calls were received. Id. at *4.
The court noted that the callers had San Diego area codes and that the calls appeared to have been made out of offices located in San Diego. Id. Accordingly, the court determined that the Southern District of California offered the best access to crucial witnesses and overall best option for judicial efficiency. *5.
Cribier did not ultimately benefit the defendant. However, had their arguments been framed differently, it may have ended up in a more favorable jurisdiction.
With a motion to transfer, the defendant gets a say in where the lawsuit ends up. For the purposes of convenience and judicial efficiency only, of course, a defendant can ensure that the lawsuit ends up in the proper jurisdiction. With any luck, that jurisdiction just may also have more favorable case law than the one picked by the plaintiff.
