Corley v. Kinder Morgan, Inc.

Filing 29

ORDER DENYING KINDER MORGAN'S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE AND VACATING HEARING by Judge William Alsup [denying 16 Motion to Transfer Case]. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
RICHIE W. CORLEY, an individual,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

No. C 12-03209 WHA
v.
ORDER DENYING KINDER
MORGAN’S MOTION
TO TRANSFER VENUE
AND VACATING HEARING

KINDER MORGAN, INC., a Kansas
corporation, and DOES 1–25,
Defendants.
/

16
17

INTRODUCTION

18

In this employment-discrimination action, defendant Kinder Morgan, Inc., moves to

19

transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) to the Eastern District of California. For the reasons

20

stated below, Kinder Morgan’s motion to transfer is DENIED.

21
22

STATEMENT
Kinder Morgan is an energy company that is incorporated in Kansas with a principal

23

place of business in Houston. Richie W. Corley was employed, primarily as a pipeliner,

24

with Kinder Morgan from 2006 to 2012. Corley was hired by Kinder Morgan’s Richmond

25

facility in 2006 and was transferred to Kinder Morgan’s Rocklin facility a few months later.

26

Corley worked out of the Rocklin facility from 2006 until sometime after October 2011 when

27

he was transferred to Kinder Morgan’s Concord facility. Corley alleges while at the Rocklin

28

facility, beginning in March 2011, he was approached by his managers and told to look for a

1

new line of work at a different company (Compl. ¶ 22). According to the complaint, after

2

several meetings and daily reminders to look for another job, he felt that his work environment

3

had become hostile and so he contacted human resources (Compl. ¶ 27). Corley then filed a

4

charge of discrimination with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and

5

the federal EEOC (Compl. ¶ 30). According to the complaint, he was cut off from his normal

6

duties and moved to Kinder Morgan’s Concord facility at the end 2011. Corley was terminated

7

shortly after his transfer to Concord.

8
9

ANALYSIS
“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court
may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.”

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

28 U.S.C. 1404(a). This section’s purpose is “to prevent the waste of time, energy, and money

12

and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and

13

expense.” Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964). A district court has discretion

14

“to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an individualized, case-by-case consideration

15

of convenience and fairness.” Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988).

16

The district court must consider both public factors which go to the interests of justice, and

17

private factors, which go to the convenience of the parties and witnesses. Decker Coal Co. v.

18

Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986).

19

1.

20

The district court must consider private convenience and fairness factors, including ease

CONVENIENCE AND FAIRNESS FACTORS.

21

of access to sources of proof, plaintiff’s choice of forum, relative convenience to parties, and

22

relative convenience to witnesses.

23

The first factor largely involves the location of relevant sources of proof.

24

With technological advances in document storage and retrieval, transporting documents

25

does not generally create a burden. Vitria Tech. Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2005 WL 2431192,

26

*3 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (Ware, J.). Kinder Morgan argues that most of the evidence related to

27

Corley’s claims, specifically documents concerning Corley’s employment, are located in Orange,

28

California in the Central District of California. Kinder Morgan further contends Corley’s doctor
2

1

and medical records are located in Vacaville. Additionally, according to Kinder Morgan, the

2

location of two work sites related to the lawsuit are located in Reno in the District of Nevada

3

and the Sacramento-Rocklin area in the Eastern District of California. It is unclear, however,

4

that a physical inspection of the work sites is necessary to try this case. Additionally, Kinder

5

Morgan does not contend that it would be an undue burden to transport relevant documents.

6

Accordingly, the location of sources of proof favors transfer only slightly.

Decker, 805 F.2d at 843. Despite this, “the degree to which courts defer to the plaintiff’s chosen

9

venue is substantially reduced where the plaintiff does not reside in the venue or where the

10

forum lacks a significant connection to the activities alleged in the complaint.” Williams v.

11
For the Northern District of California

The general rule is that a plaintiff’s choice of forum is afforded substantial weight.

8

United States District Court

7

Bowman, 157 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 1106 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (Walker, J.). Corley resides in Vacaville,

12

which is located in the Eastern District of California. Based on the complaint, it appears most

13

employment-related events relevant to the litigation occurred while Corley was employed at

14

Kinder Morgan’s Rocklin facility located in the Eastern District of California. Because Corley

15

is not a resident of this district and the majority of events giving rise to the case did not occur

16

here, Corley’s choice of forum is afforded only some deference.

17

As to the convenience to the parties, Kinder Morgan points out that its relevant office

18

is located in Rocklin. Additionally, Corley resides in Vacaville. Both Rocklin and Vacaville

19

are in the Eastern District of California and are closer in proximity to the Eastern District’s

20

Sacramento division than to the Northern District’s San Francisco division. Both parties,

21

however, reside near this district. The comparative proximity to Sacramento is minimal and

22

San Francisco, like Sacramento, is within driving distance of Rocklin and Vacaville. It will not

23

be hard on any party to attend court in San Francisco. Furthermore, counsel for both Corley

24

and Kinder Morgan are located in San Francisco. Most hearings will be attended by counsel

25

only and it will save counsel’s time and money to keep this action in San Francisco.

26

Finally, convenience to potential witnesses must be considered. Although discovery

27

is at an early stage, both parties have indicated at least some individuals that will likely be

28

called as witnesses. Corley argues that two potential witnesses reside in the Northern District.
3

1

Kinder Morgan has named six witnesses, five of whom reside in the Eastern District of

2

California and will testify to facts central to this case. Three of the six witness named by

3

Kinder Morgan are also mentioned in the complaint and appear to be central to the litigation.

4

As discussed, because of the proximity of San Francisco to the Eastern District it will not be

5

hard for a witness to travel to San Francisco. The Court is certain that witnesses will be equally

6

willing to appear in San Francisco as they would be in Sacramento. On the whole, the

7

convenience to witnesses only slightly favors transfer.

8

2.

9

A district court hearing a motion to transfer must also consider public-interest factors

INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

such as relative degrees of court congestion, local interest in deciding local controversies,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

potential conflicts of laws, and burdening citizens of an unrelated forum with jury duty.

12

Decker Coal, 805 F.2d at 843. Kinder Morgan contends that both districts are equally familiar

13

with the applicable law as both are in the Ninth Circuit. Additionally Kinder Morgan argues

14

that the local interests favor transfer because Corley, the relevant Kinder Morgan facility and

15

the facts giving rise to this litigation are linked to the Eastern District. This may be accurate,

16

however, but the degree of court congestion strongly supports keeping this action in the Northern

17

District.

18

Contrary to Kinder Morgan’s suggestion, the Eastern District of California is

19

overwhelmed with cases compared to our own district. Kinder Morgan states “the Eastern

20

District of California is appreciably less congested than the Northern District of California . . .

21

[t]he Northern District has an average of 7,577 filings per year . . . the Eastern District

22

of California over the past three years had an average of 6,835 filings per year (Br. 15).”

23

What Kinder Morgan conveniently leaves out is our district has more judges, fourteen active

24

judge positions in the Northern District compared to six active judge positions in the Eastern

25

District. What makes matters even worse is on a weighted caseload basis the Eastern District

26

is two times as swamped as this district. In 2011, the Eastern District was managing 1098

27

weighted filings per authorized judgeship. As compared to the Northern District, which was

28

managing 631 weighted filings per authorized judgeship. See United States District Court
4

1

Judicial Caseload Profile, available at http://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics. Furthermore, because

2

of this bone-crushing load, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski requested district judges elsewhere in the

3

Ninth Circuit to assist the Eastern District by taking prisoner cases filed there. The undersigned

4

judge has done so and took ten cases in order to relieve the load on colleagues in the Eastern

5

District. Therefore, from the point of comparative caseloads, the instant action should clearly

6

stay in the Northern District. Of course, our own district is one of the busiest in the nation but

7

the Eastern District is even busier.

8

For these principal reasons Kinder Morgan’s motion to transfer venue is DENIED.

9

CONCLUSION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

For the above-stated reasons, Kinder Morgan’s motion to transfer venue to the Eastern
District of California is DENIED. The hearing schedule for October 25, 2012, is VACATED.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: October 17, 2012.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5