Mathews v. Comerica Bank et al

Filing 23

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO TRANSFER AND DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS TO REMAND by Judge Alsup denying 8 Motion to Remand; granting 15 Motion to Transfer Case (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

CAROLINA RUMOHR, individually, and on
behalf of other members of the public similarly
situated,

12
13
14
15

Related to:

Plaintiffs,

No. C 11-01707 WHA

v.
COMERCIA BANK, COMERICA
INCORPORATED, and COMERICA
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC.,

16

Defendants.
/

17
18

NANCY MATHEWS, individually, and on behalf
of other members of the public similarly situated,

19
20
21
22
23
24

No. C 11-01706 WHA

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS TO TRANSFER AND
DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS TO
REMAND

Plaintiffs,
v.
COMERCIA BANK, COMERICA
INCORPORATED, and COMERICA
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC.,
Defendants.
/

25

INTRODUCTION

26

In these related proposed wage-and-hour class actions, this order grants defendants’

27

motions to transfer to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The

28

remand motions may be re-asserted in the transferee court.

1
2

STATEMENT
Plaintiffs Carolina Rumohr and Nancy Mathews are former employees of Comerica Bank

3

who worked as Assistant Banking Center Managers. They allege that defendants Comerica Bank,

4

Comerica Incorporated, and Comerica Management Company misclassified plaintiffs as

5

“exempt” employees and failed to pay them for overtime, missed meal periods, or rest breaks. In

6

both of these actions, plaintiffs are represented by the same counsel and make the same claims

7

against the same defendants, and identical motions to remand and transfer are being brought in

8

each. Plaintiffs’ complaints seek the following: (1) unpaid minimum wages and overtime

9

compensation, (2) penalties under California Labor Code Section 1197.1, (3) liquidated damages
under California Labor Code Section 1194.2, and (4) restitution of unpaid wages and other

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

allegedly withheld monies under California Business and Professions Code Section 17200.

12
13
14

These two actions are not only related to each other but are related to three other actions:
County
Case
Case
Date
District
Judge
Date Filed
Removed
Name
Number
Removed
From
C.D. Cal.

18

S.D. Cal.

Granata

19
20
21

N.D. Cal.

Motion for summary judgment heard on June 13.

11-01938

Morrow

Hearing on motion to remand set for July 25.

11-00716

Houston

Status:

Gallegos

17

Morrow

Status:

16

Cordova

09-08905
Status:

15

Nov. 3, 2009

Hearing on motions to remand and transfer set for July 18.

Feb. 18, 2011

Feb. 18, 2011

Dec. 4, 2009

Los Angeles

Mar. 7, 2011

Apr. 7, 2011

Los Angeles

San Diego

Mathews

11-01707

Alsup

Feb. 18, 2011

Apr. 7, 2011

Santa Clara

Rumohr

11-01706

Alsup

Feb. 22, 2011

Apr. 7, 2011

San Francisco

22

The Aiwazian Law Firm is plaintiffs’ counsel in all five actions. The Initiative Legal Group and

23

Righetti Glugoski PC are co-counsel in all but Granata.

24

The initial action in this series was Cordova, which was a proposed class action on behalf

25

of all current and former Assistant Banking Center Managers at Comerica Banks throughout

26

California. The four other actions were filed after the Cordova plaintiffs withdrew their motion

27

for class certification on January 25, 2011. The Cordova defendants, the same defendants as in

28

the instant actions, timely opposed the Cordova plaintiffs’ motion for class certification before it

2

1

was withdrawn. Defendants argue that the motion for class certification was withdrawn and the

2

Rumohr, Mathews, Gallegos, and Granata actions were filed in an attempt to avoid federal

3

subject-matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. The Rumohr, Mathews,

4

Gallegos, and Granata actions collectively bring the same claims on behalf of the same proposed

5

class members as in Cordova, except that each is one of four smaller groups of the whole based

6

on different Comerica geographic “districts” in California.

7
8

As can be seen from the above chart, Cordova has been pending for nearly twenty months,
and has been assigned to Judge Margaret M. Morrow in the Central District for almost as long.

9

ANALYSIS
As an initial matter, this order notes that it need not decide the pending motions to remand

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

before it decides the motions to transfer. Although a court may not rule on the merits of an action

12

without first deciding jurisdictional issues, the outcome of a motion to transfer is not a ruling on

13

the merits — it is a ruling on the appropriate forum in which an action should proceed to a ruling

14

on the merits. Courts may consider a motion to transfer before a motion to remand for lack of

15

subject-matter jurisdiction is resolved. In Re LimitNone, LLC, 551 F.3d 572, 576 (7th Cir. 2008);

16

see also Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malay. Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430–31 (2007) (proper

17

to decide motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens before evaluating subject-matter

18

jurisdiction).

19

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a), defendants move this court to transfer both of our actions

20

(Rumohr and Mathews) to the Central District of California “[f]or the convenience of parties and

21

witnesses [and] in the interest of justice.” The purpose of Section 1404(a) “is to prevent the

22

waste of time, energy and money and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against

23

unnecessary inconvenience and expense.” Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964)

24

(citation and quotation marks omitted).

25
26
27
28

Plaintiffs concede that the actions could have been brought in the Central District (Opp.
4). This order finds that either district is convenient to the parties and witnesses.
On the other hand, this order finds that transfer is plainly in the interest of justice to avoid
duplicative efforts by the judicial system and the parties. The instant actions are intimately
3

1

related to the Cordova and Gallegos actions currently pending in front of Judge Morrow in the

2

Central District of California. Cordova has been pending there for over a year and a half, with a

3

summary judgment motion just having been argued and trial set for August 30 of this year.

4

Extensive discovery has taken place in that action. Common issues of law and fact are present

5

across these actions. Allowing Rumohr and Mathews to remain here would involve substantial

6

duplication of judicial and party resources, and it is therefore in the interest of justice to transfer

7

the instant actions to the Central District.

8

Plaintiffs argue that the existence of related actions does not require a transfer. True, but

plaintiffs’ objections that the actions are not sufficiently related because of the different named

11
For the Northern District of California

irrelevant. The purpose of Section 1404(a) would clearly be achieved by transfer. And despite

10

United States District Court

9

plaintiffs, they involve common issues of law and fact to those pending before Judge Morrow.

12
13

For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motions to transfer the Rumohr and Mathews
actions to the Central District of California are GRANTED.

14
15
16

*

*

Because this order finds transfer appropriate, it will not reach plaintiffs’ motions to
remand, which motions are DENIED without prejudice to re-filing in the transferee court.

17
18

*

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motions to transfer are GRANTED and plaintiffs’

19

motions to remand are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk shall transfer the above-

20

captioned actions to the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated: June 17, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
4