Maurice Sandoval v. Redfin Corporation

Filing 22

ORDER transferring case to the Central District of California. 20 Stipulation is GRANTED as modified and the case management conference set for Friday, January 9, 2015 is VACATED. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on January 5, 2015. (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

10
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

9

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

MAURICE SANDOVAL, on behalf of
himself and all persons similarly
situated,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
REDFIN CORPORATION, and DOES 1-10, )
INCLUSIVE,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14-4444 SC
ORDER TRANSFERRING VENUE TO
THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA

19
20
21

I.

INTRODUCTION
Now before the Court is a stipulation to transfer venue filed

22

by Defendant Redfin Corporation and Plaintiff Maurice Sandoval.

23

ECF No. 20 ("Stip.").

24

appropriate factors even though the parties now stipulate to the

25

transfer," the Court reviews whether transfer is appropriate.

26

Tung Tai Grp. v. Fla. Transformer, Inc., No. 5:11-cv-02389

27

EJD(HRL), 2011 WL 3471400, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2011) (citing

28

White v. ABCO Eng'g Corp., 199 F.3d 140, 144 (3d Cir. 1999)).

Because "the court must evaluate the

See

For

1

the reasons set forth below, the Court finds the transfer of venue

2

to the Central District of California is appropriate, and therefore

3

the stipulation is GRANTED AS MODIFIED by this order.

4
5

II.

BACKGROUND
This is a putative employment class action alleging various

6
7

violations of state and federal law arising out of Defendant

8

Redfin's classification of its real estate agents as exempt from

9

overtime wages and other related benefits.

The case was originally

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

filed in San Mateo County Superior Court and removed to federal

11

court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action

12

Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332.
As described in the parties' stipulation, two earlier-filed

13
14

cases involving the same parties and claims at issue here are

15

pending before Judge Philip S. Gutierrez of the Central District of

16

California.

17

(C.D. Cal.); Badivian v. Redfin Corp., No. 2:13-cv-03664-PSG-MRW

18

(C.D. Cal.).

19

Corporation filed a motion for abstention asking the Court to

20

dismiss, transfer, or stay the case pending the resolution of these

21

earlier-filed cases.

22

the undersigned, the parties stipulated to transfer the case to the

23

Central District for potential consolidation with Goundar and

24

Badivian, arguing that transfer is appropriate under 28 U.S.C.

25

Section 1404(a).

26

///

27

///

28

///

See Goundar v. Redfin Corp., No. 2:13-cv-03698-PSG-MRW

After this case was removed, Defendant Redfin

ECF No. 6.

After the case was reassigned to

2

1

III. LEGAL STANDARD
Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a), the Court may "[f]or the

2
3

convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interests of

4

justice . . . transfer any civil action to any other

5

district . . . where it might have been brought."

6

undertake an "'individualized, case-by-case consideration of

7

convenience and fairness,'" and determine whether three elements

8

are satisfied: (1) the propriety of venue in the transferor

9

district, (2) whether the action could have been brought in the

The Court must

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

transferee district, and (3) whether the transfer will serve the

11

interests of justice and convenience of the parties and witnesses.

12

Tung Tai, 2011 WL 3471400, at *1 (quoting Jones v. GNC Franchising,

13

Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000)).

14

series of factors in determining whether the third element is

15

satisfied including plaintiff's choice of forum, the convenience of

16

the parties and witnesses, ease of access to evidence, the

17

familiarity of the potential fora with applicable law, feasibility

18

of consolidation, local interests, and court congestion.

19

v. Bowman, 157 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 1106 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (citing

20

Royal Queentex Enters. Inc. v. Sara Lee Corp., No. C-99-4787 MJJ,

21

2000 WL 246599, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2000)).

The Court weighs a

Williams

22
23
24

IV.

DISCUSSION
First, the Court finds that the first two prongs of Section

25

1404(a) are satisfied because venue is proper in this district, and

26

the case could have been brought in the Central District of

27

California.

28

County Superior Court, the case was properly removed to this court.

Because the action was originally filed in San Mateo

3

1

See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (permitting removal "to the district court

2

of the United States for the district and division embracing the

3

place where such action is pending").

4

could have been brought in the Central District of California

5

because the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in

6

California and a substantial part of the events giving rise to

7

Plaintiff's claims took place in the Central District.

8

U.S.C. § 1391(a), (b)(2)-(3); ECF No. 1-3 ("Compl.") ¶ 2 (noting

9

that the company has locations in San Francisco and Irvine,

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10
11

Furthermore, the action

See 28

California).
In addition, the Court finds that transferring the action to

12

the Central District of California will serve the convenience of

13

the parties and witnesses and promote the interests of justice.

14

other courts have observed, "[a]n important consideration in

15

determining whether the interests of justice dictate a transfer of

16

venue is the pendency of a related case in the transferee forum."

17

Hawkins v. Gerber Prods. Co., 924 F. Supp. 2d 1208, 1214 (S.D. Cal.

18

2013).

19

cases in the Central District presents the opportunity for

20

coordination of discovery, conservation of judicial resources, and

21

the avoidance of inconsistent judgments.

22

given that the other consolidated actions have been pending in the

23

Central District for more than a year.

24

weigh heavily in favor of transfer.

25

As

This is just such a situation, as coordination with the two

This especially true

In short, these interests

Furthermore, as Judge Shubb on the Eastern District of

26

California found in transferring a different employment case to the

27

Central District under similar circumstances, "[t]he interests of

28

justice can be decisive."

Gatdula v. CRST Int'l, Inc., No. Civ.

4

1

2:10-58 WBS CMK, 2011 WL 445798, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2011).

2

The Court agrees and finds that even though certain other factors

3

(for example Plaintiff's choice of forum) weigh against transfer,

4

the weighty interests of economy and avoidance of inconsistent

5

judgments, as well as the parties' agreement to transfer the

6

action, outweigh any contrary considerations.
Accordingly, the Court finds that because venue is proper in

7
8

this district, the action could have been brought in the Central

9

District of California, and transferring the action to the Central

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

District will serve the interests of justice and convenience of the

11

parties and witnesses, this case satisfies all three prongs of

12

Section 1404(a).

13
14
15

V.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above the Court GRANTS the parties'

16

stipulation AS MODIFIED by this order, and DIRECTS the Clerk to

17

transfer this action to the Central District of California.

18

light of this decision, Defendant's pending motion, ECF No. 6 is

19

TERMINATED, and the Case Management Conference scheduled for

20

Friday, January 9, 2015 is VACATED.

In

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24
25

Dated: January 5, 2014
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28

5