Singh, et al v. Roadrunner Intermodal Services, LLC, et al.
Filing
29
ORDER GRANTING 18 MOTION to Transfer Case. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 9/30/15. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2015) [Transferred from cand on 10/2/2015.]
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
JABIR SINGH, et al.,
Case No. 15-cv-01701-JSW
Plaintiffs,
8
v.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
TRANSFER
9
10
ROADRUNNER INTERMODAL
SERVICES, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Re: Docket No. 19
12
13
Now before the Court for consideration is the motion to transfer venue, filed by
14
Defendants Roadrunner Intermodal Services, LLC (“Roadrunner”), Central Cal Transportation,
15
LLC (“CCT”), and Morgan Southern, Inc. (“Morgan”) (collectively “Defendants”). The Court has
16
considered the parties’ papers, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, and it finds the
17
motion is suitable for disposition without oral argument. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The Court
18
VACATES the hearing scheduled for October 9, 2015, and it HEREBY GRANTS Defendants’
19
motion.
20
21
BACKGROUND
On March 9, 2015, Plaintiffs filed this wage and hour putative class action in the Superior
22
Court of the State of California for the City and County of San Francisco (“San Francisco Superior
23
Court”). Plaintiffs alleged that venue was proper in San Francisco Superior Court, because
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants own and operate business facilities in San Francisco
County, and other counties in the State of California, where
Defendants … engage Plaintiffs and Class Members to work driving
trucks, control their wages, hours and working conditions, and suffer
or permit them to work as truck drivers. … Plaintiffs and the Class
Members have suffered damages, and will continue to suffer
damages, in San Francisco County and other counties throughout
California as a result of Defendants, and each of their wrongful
conduct[.]
1
2
(Notice of Removal, Ex. A (Complaint (“Compl.”) ¶ 5.)
It is undisputed that each Plaintiff resides within the Eastern District of California. (Id. ¶¶
3
4
8-15.) According to Plaintiffs, Defendants have violated various provisions of the California
5
Labor Code by failing to provide meal and rest breaks, failing to pay minimum wage, failing to
6
compensate them for business expenses incurred, failing to pay them wages due at discharge, and
7
failing to provide accurate wage statements. (Id. ¶¶ 42-84.) Plaintiffs, through counsel, attest that
8
they performed much of the work for which Defendants allegedly have not compensated them in
9
and around the Port of Oakland. (Declaration of Daniel M. Kopfman (“Kopfman Decl.”), Exs. A,
10
B.)
On April 15, 2015, Defendants removed the action to this Court. It is undisputed that none
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
of the Defendants are residents of this District. CCT is a drayage carrier, with a terminal in
13
Fresno, California. (Declaration of Jeff Cox (“Cox Decl.”), ¶ 3.) Roadrunner is an affiliate of
14
CCT and also provides transportation related services. (Id, ¶ 4.) Roadrunner and CCT generally
15
haul containers from the Central Valley to the Port of Oakland. (Id., ¶ 5.) According to
16
Defendants, Plaintiffs signed their contracts with CCT or Roadrunner at CCT’s Fresno terminal,
17
were dispatched from CCT’s Fresno terminal, and payments were processed and approved in
18
Fresno. (Id., ¶¶ 6-9.)
The Court will address additional facts as necessary in its analysis.
19
ANALYSIS
20
21
A.
Applicable Legal Standard.
Defendants move to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern
22
23
District of California, pursuant to, inter alia, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1404 (“Section
24
1404”).1 Pursuant to Section 1404(a), a district court may transfer a civil action to any district
25
1
26
27
28
Defendants also moved to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1406 (“Section 1406”).
Section 1406 permits a district court to dismiss or transfer where an action has been filed in the
wrong district or division, i.e., where venue is improper. However, Defendants did not file a
motion to dismiss for improper venue, and when they filed their answer, they did not object to
venue. Thus, they waived any objections to the propriety of venue within this District. See, e.g.,
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h).
2
1
where the case could have been filed originally for the convenience of the parties and witnesses
2
and in the interest of justice. A motion to transfer venue under section 1404(a) requires the court
3
to weigh multiple factors to determine whether transfer is appropriate in a particular case. For
4
example, the court may consider: (1) the plaintiff’s choice of forum; (2) the convenience of
5
witnesses and the parties; (3) the familiarity of the forum with the applicable law; (4) the ease of
6
access to evidence; and (5) the relative court congestion and time of trial in each forum. Gulf Oil
7
Co. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 -09 (1947); Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-
8
99 (9th Cir. 2000). As the moving parties, Defendants bear the burden of showing that the
9
inconvenience of litigating in this forum favors transfer. See E. & J. Gallo Winery v. F. &
P.S.p.A., 899 F. Supp. 465, 466 (E.D. Cal. 1994).
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
B.
The Court Grants the Motion to Transfer.
There is no dispute that Plaintiffs could have filed suit in the Eastern District.
12
13
Accordingly, the Court weighs the relevant competing factors to determine which forum is
14
appropriate under the circumstances.
15
1.
Plaintiffs’ Choice of Forum.
16
A court should give a plaintiff’s choice of forum great deference, unless the defendant can
17
show that other factors of convenience clearly outweigh the plaintiff’s choice of forum. Decker
18
Coal Co., 805 F.2d at 843. There are factors that will diminish the deference given to a plaintiff’s
19
choice of forum, including where, as here, a plaintiff files suit on behalf of a putative class. See,
20
e.g., Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987). The deference accorded to a plaintiff’s
21
chosen forum also should be balanced against both the extent of a defendant’s contacts with the
22
chosen forum and a plaintiff’s contacts, including those relating to a plaintiff’s cause of action.
23
Pacific Car & Foundry Co. v. Pence, 403 F.2d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 1968). “If the operative facts
24
have not occurred within the forum of original selection and that forum has no particular interest
25
in the parties or the subject matter, [a] plaintiff’s choice is only entitled to minimal consideration.”
26
Id.
27
28
It is undisputed that the named Plaintiffs are not residents of this District. Although
Defendants argue that all putative class members reside in the Eastern District, they attest only
3
1
that “[a]ll independent vendors who contracted with CCT or RRIS in Fresno since 2013 have
2
resided in the Eastern District of California.” (Second Declaration of Jeff Cox (“Second Cox
3
Decl.”), ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs, however, define the class as “all current and former California-based,
4
truck drivers or persons in an equivalent position or performing equivalent job duties however
5
titled, who worked and/or are forking for Defendants … within four years prior to the filing of the
6
original Complaint[.]” (Compl. ¶ 30.) Thus, it is possible that some members of the putative class
7
reside within this District.
8
9
Defendants also argue that the events that give rise to the dispute occurred in the Eastern
District. It is undisputed that, as part of their job duties, Plaintiffs haul containers to the Port of
Oakland, which is within this District. Defendants argue that although Plaintiffs may have
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
performed some work in this District, they contracted with Defendants in the Eastern District and
12
all payment decisions and payment processing occurred in the Eastern District. (See Cox Decl., ¶¶
13
7-9.) Plaintiffs have shown that there is a connection to this District, although it is minimal.
14
In light of the fact that none of the named Plaintiffs resides here, given that this is a
15
putative class action, and in light of the fact less than substantial connection to this District, the
16
Court affords minimal deference to Plaintiffs’ choice of forum. Lou, 834 F.2d at 739; Pacific Car
17
& Foundry, 403 F.2d at 954.
18
2.
Convenience of the Witnesses and Parties.
19
In addition to considering Plaintiffs’ choice of forum, the Court considers the relative
20
convenience to the parties and witnesses involved in the lawsuit of the competing forums when
21
deciding a motion to transfer. Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 508. The convenience of witnesses is often
22
the most important factor in resolving a motion to transfer. The trial court looks at who the
23
witnesses are, where they are located, and the relevance of their testimony. A.J. Industries, Inc. v.
24
United States District Court, 503 F.3d 384, 389 (9th Cir. 1974).
25
Defendants have not identified any particular witnesses and have not attested to the nature
26
of their testimony. Rather, they attest generally that “[t]he witnesses for CCT and RRIS who are
27
familiar with the services Plaintiffs performed work out of the Fresno terminal are all located in or
28
around Fresno County.” (Cox Decl., ¶ 10.) Mr. Cox also attests that he resides in the Eastern
4
1
District. (Second Cox Decl., ¶ 4.) This type of general testimony normally would not be
2
sufficient to sustain a defendant’s burden of persuasion on a motion to transfer. See E. & J. Gallo
3
Winery, 899 F. Supp. at 466. In addition, Mr. Cox does not specify whether these unidentified
4
witnesses are party or non-party witnesses. Although the Court should consider the convenience
5
of party witnesses, “the convenience of non-party witnesses is the more important factor.” Saleh
6
v. Titan Corp., 361 F. Supp. 2d 1152, 1160 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (quoting Aquatic Amusement Assocs.
7
v. Walt Disney World Co., 734 F. Supp. 54, 57 (N.D. N.Y. 1990)) (internal quotation marks
8
omitted).
9
It is undisputed that each of the named Plaintiffs resides in the Eastern District. In
addition, although Defendants have only put forth general evidence about likely witnesses, the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Plaintiffs have not refuted it; nor have they identified any potential non-party witnesses located in
12
this District.
13
14
Based on the current record, the Court concludes that the convenience of the witnesses and
parties weighs slightly in favor of transfer.
15
3.
16
It is undisputed that this action will involve California law, and both this Court and the
17
Familiarity of the Forum with the Applicable Law.
Eastern District are familiar with that law. This factor is neutral.
18
4.
Ease of Access to Evidence.
19
Access to sources of proof is another factor that favors transfer. Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 508.
20
Defendants attest that all of the relevant records are located either in Fresno or at the Defendants’
21
corporate offices in Wisconsin. (Cox Decl., ¶ 10.) “With technological advances in document
22
storage and retrieval, transporting documents generally does not create a burden.” Van Slyke v.
23
Capital One Bank, 503 F. Supp. 2d 1353, 1362 (N.D. Cal. 2007). However, Defendants have
24
demonstrated that relevant documents are not located within this District.
25
Accordingly, the Court concludes that this factor weighs in favor of transfer.
26
5.
27
Another factor courts consider is the relative court congestion in each forum. Plaintiffs ask
28
Relative Congestion.
the Court to take judicial notice of an opinion written from the Eastern District, which stated that
5
1
“[j]
]udges in the Eastern Di
e
istrict carry the heaviest case loads in the nation. (Plaintiff Request
t
n
.”
f’s
2
for Judicial No
r
otice, Ex. A.) The Court can take jud
)
dicial notice of the existe
ence of the o
opinion. It
3
can
nnot, howeve take judic notice th the statem
er,
cial
hat
ments therein are true. T Court do
The
oes,
4
how
wever, have access to sta
atistical reco that sho that the E
ords
ow
Eastern Distr
rict’s overall caseload
5
and median tim to disposi
d
me
ition is slightly greater th the Nort
han
thern Distric caseload 2 The
ct’s
d.
6
Court cannot sa that the difference is so great that this factor w
ay
d
t
would weigh against tra
h
ansfer.
The Co has cons
ourt
sidered all of the factors set forth abo
f
ove. When t Court we
the
eighs those
7
8
ctors and when it conside the intere of justic the Court concludes t
ers
ests
ce,
that, on balan this
nce,
fac
9
cas should be transferred to the Easter District.
se
rn
CONCLU
USION
10
For the foregoing re
easons, the Court GRAN Defend
C
NTS
dants’ motion to transfer venue, and
n
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
it HEREBY TR
H
RANSFERS this matter to the United States Dis
strict Court f the Easter District of
for
rn
13
California. On the transf is comple the Cler is directed to close thi file.
nce
fer
ete,
rk
d
is
IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
14
15
Da
ated: Septem
mber 30, 2015
16
__
___________
__________
____
JE
EFFREY S. W
WHITE
Un
nited States D
District Judg
ge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2
28
Se http://jnet.ao.dcn/reso
ee
ources/statis
stics/fed-cou
urt-statistics/f
/fcms-june-2
2015-district
t-courts (last
t
vis
sited Sept. 29 2015).
9,
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?