United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
For CardiAQ Valve Technologies, Inc., Plaintiff: John W. Holcomb, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Knobbe, Martens, Olsen & ; Bear, Irvine, CA; John B. Sganga, Jr., Knobbe Martens Olson & ; Bear LLP, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Irvine, CA; Vito A. Canuso, III, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Villa Park, CA; Randall T. Weeks, Jr., Partridge Snow & ; Hahn, LLP, New Bedford, MA.
For Neovasc Inc., Neovasc Tiara Inc., Defendants: Charles Tait Graves, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich Rosati, P.C., San Francisco, CA; Douglas H. Carsten, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ; ROSATI, San Diego, CA; Peter S. Kang, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & ; Rosati, PC, San Diego, CA; Shaun R. Snader, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & ; Rosati, PC, Washington, DC; Gerard D. O'Shea, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & ; Rosati P.C., New York, NY.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Nathaniel M. Gorton, United States District Judge.
This case arises out of an alleged misuse of confidential information belonging to plaintiff CardiAQ Valve Technologies, Inc. (" CardiAQ" ) in developing a prosthetic heart mitral valve. CardiAQ asserts claims for relief against defendants Neovasc, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Neovasc Tiara, Inc. (collectively " Neovasc" ) for 1) correction of inventorship, 2) breach of contract, 3) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, 4) fraud, 5) misappropriation of trade secrets and 6) unfair and deceptive trade practices.
CardiAQ is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware. Until February, 2010, it maintained its principal place of business in Winchester, Massachusetts. Since 2010, it has removed its principal place of business to Irvine, California.
Neovasc is organized and incorporated under the laws of Canada with its principal place of business in Richmond, British Columbia, Canada. Neovasc conducts some of its business in the United States, including in Massachusetts.
Pending before the Court is defendants' motion to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be denied.
I. Procedural history
Plaintiff filed its complaint in June, 2014. The following month, Neovasc moved to transfer the case and to dismiss CardiAQ's claims for correction of inventorship, fraud and unfair and deceptive trade practices. In August, 2014, CardiAQ filed an amended complaint and defendants subsequently moved to dismiss the same three claims. This opinion addresses only Neovasc's motion to transfer.
II. Defendants' motion to transfer
A. Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court may transfer a civil action to any other district where it might have been brought " [f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice." In order for the court to transfer under § 1404(a), it must be shown that the case could have been properly brought in the transferee forum. Venue is proper in a judicial district in which the defendant resides or " a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred...." 28 U.S.C. ...