Wheat v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc.

Filing 16

ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti granting 14 Stipulation (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

DARNETTA WHEAT, on behalf of
himself and all persons similarly
situated,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14-cv-05431-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 J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. ("JBH") and Plaintiff

23

Darnetta Wheat.

24

evaluate the appropriate factors even though the parties now

25

stipulate to the transfer," the Court reviews whether transfer is

26

appropriate.

27

5:11-cv-02389 EJD(HRL), 2011 WL 3471400, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8,

28

2011) (citing White v. ABCO Eng'g Corp., 199 F.3d 140, 144 (3d Cir.

ECF No. 14 ("Stip.").

Because "the court must

See Tung Tai Grp. v. Fla. Transformer, Inc., No.

1

1999)).

For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds the

2

transfer of venue to the Central District of California is

3

appropriate, and therefore the stipulation is GRANTED AS MODIFIED

4

by this order.

5
6
7

II.

BACKGROUND
This is a putative employment class action alleging various

United States District Court

violations of state and federal law arising out of Defendant JBH's

9
For the Northern District of California

8

failure to pay wages and to reimburse employees for medical and

10

physical examinations they were required to undergo.

See ECF No.

11

1-3 ("Compl.") ¶ 1.

12

logistics services, and it employs a large number of truck drivers.

13

Id. ¶¶ 5, 16-17.

14

behalf of JBH's drivers.

15

all JBH drivers nationwide for claims under the federal Fair Labor

16

Standards Act and classes of California drivers for the state law

17

claims.

JBH is a provider of transportation and

Plaintiff brings this purported class action on
Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of

18

Plaintiff originally filed this case in Alameda County

19

Superior Court, but Defendant removed it to federal court on the

20

basis of federal question jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

21

Section 1331, because some of Plaintiff's claims arise out of the

22

federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

23

Court transfer venue to the Central District of California.

The parties now request that the

24
25
26

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

27

convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interests of

28

justice . . . transfer any civil action to any other
2

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

3

convenience and fairness,'" and determine whether three elements

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

interests of justice and convenience of the parties and witnesses.

8

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

9

United States District Court

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

2

For the Northern District of California

1

The Court must

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

The Court weighs a

10

series of factors in determining whether the third element is

11

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

12

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

13

familiarity of the potential fora with applicable law, feasibility

14

of consolidation, local interests, and court congestion.

15

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

16

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

17

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

Williams

18
19
20

IV.

DISCUSSION
First, the Court finds that the first two requirements for

21

transfer are satisfied because venue is proper in this

istrict,

22

and the case could have been brought in the Central District of

23

California.

24

County Superior Court, the case was properly removed to this

25

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

26

of the United States for the district and division embracing the

27

place where such action is pending").

28

could have been brought in the Central District of California

Because the action was originally filed in Alameda

3

Furthermore, the action

ourt.

1

because the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in

2

California, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to

3

Plaintiff's claims took place in the Central District.

4

U.S.C. § 1391(a), (b)(2)-(3); Stip. at 1 (noting that JBH has

5

offices in California and that JBH has employees and managers

6

located in California).

See 28

In addition, the Court finds that transferring the action to

7

United States District Court

the Central District of California will serve the convenience of

9
For the Northern District of California

8

the parties and witnesses and promote the interests of justice.

10

The documents relevant to this lawsuit are kept in JBH's offices in

11

South Gate, California (which is located in the Central District).

12

JBH's employees and managers responsible for enforcing JBH's

13

employment policies in California are also located there.

14

1.

15

was within the Northern District of California, most of JBH's

16

California drivers are based out of South Gate.

17

the plaintiff's choice of forum, convenience of the parties, and

18

ease of access to evidence all suggest that the Central District is

19

a more appropriate venue.

Stip. at

Additionally, even though Plaintiff's initial choice of forum
Id.

Therefore,

Accordingly, the Court finds that because venue is proper in

20
21

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

22

District of California, and transferring the action to the Central

23

District will serve the interests of justice and convenience of the

24

parties and witnesses, this case satisfies all three requirements

25

for a transfer of venue.

26

///

27

///

28

///
4

1
2

V.

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

3

stipulation and DIRECTS the Clerk to transfer this action to the

4

Central District of California.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

9

Dated: April 15, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5