Topete et al v. Ramos Furniture

Filing 63

ORDER GRANTING 62 STIPULATION TO TRANSFER ACTION by Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. (hsglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/25/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MARISOL TOPETE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8

RAMOS FURNITURE,

Re: Dkt. No. 62

Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION
TRANSFERRING ACTION

v.

9
10

Case No. 15-cv-00845-HSG

12
Before the Court is the stipulation to change venue filed by Plaintiffs Marisol Topete and

13
14

Rosalba Maldonado (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Ramos Furniture (“Defendant”). Dkt. No. 62

15

(“Stip.”). The parties request a discretionary transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the Eastern

16

District of California because that is where Plaintiffs, most putative class members, witnesses, and

17

physical evidence are located. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the parties’

18

stipulation and TRANSFERS this entire action to the Eastern District of California.

19

I.

20

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed this wage-and-hour putative class action brought under federal and state law

21

on February 25, 2015. Dkt. No. 1. During the parties’ initial case management conference on

22

June 16, 2015, the Court noted that a threshold question existed as to whether venue in this district

23

was proper, given the apparent location of the stores. See Dkt. No. 26. The parties agreed to meet

24

and confer to discuss the issue further, but Plaintiffs noted that there was still some question about

25

the proper identity of the defendants that had the potential to affect its position on proper venue.

26

After completing some discovery, Plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint to

27

finalize the list of named defendants. Dkt. No. 46. Briefing was completed on January 11, 2016.

28

See Dkt. Nos. 51 & 53. On February 10, 2016, the Court took the matter under submission. Dkt.

1

No. 59. The next day, the parties filed the instant stipulation and proposed order to change venue,

2

agreeing that the most appropriate venue is the Eastern District of California. Stip. ¶¶ 4-5.

3

II.

LEGAL STANDARD
The Court has discretion to transfer a case to another district under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

4
5

The statute provides that: “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a

6

district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have

7

been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.” Id.

8

Even though Section 1404(a) now permits parties to stipulate to request a transfer to any

9

district, the Court must still consider whether transfer is statutorily appropriate. 15 Fed. Prac. &
Proc. Juris. § 3841 (4th ed. 2015) (“[C]onsent of all parties is not a basis for ordering transfer.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

The transferor court must still conclude that the Section 1404(a) statutory factors of convenience

12

and the interest of justice justify transfer . . . [The parties] are consenting to a transferee court after

13

the court determines that transfer is proper based upon the longstanding statutory factors.”); H.R.

14

Rep. No. 112-10, at 24 (2011), reprinted in 2011 U.S.C.C.A.N. 576, 580 (“Under the proposed

15

amendment, such transfers would only be possible where all parties agreed and only if the court

16

found it to be for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.”).
Whether transfer serves the “convenience of the parties and witnesses” and promotes “the

17
18

interest of justice” is a determination courts must make on a case-by-case basis. Jones v. GNC

19

Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000). Relevant factors include: (1) the location

20

where any contracts were negotiated and executed, (2) the state that is most familiar with the

21

governing law (if transfer would make a difference), (3) the plaintiff’s choice of forum, (4) the

22

respective parties’ contacts with the forum, (5) the contacts relating to the plaintiff’s cause of

23

action in the chosen forum, (6) the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums, (7) the

24

availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses, and (8)

25

the ease of access to sources of proof. Id. at 498-99.

26

III.

27
28

DISCUSSION
Applying the factors set forth above, the Court finds that transfer to the Eastern District of

California is appropriate. Based on the parties’ representations, the Eastern District is the center
2

1

of gravity of this action. Both Plaintiffs are residents of Fresno County, which is located in the

2

Eastern District. Stip. ¶ 3. Defendant represents that most of the putative class members, third-

3

party witnesses, and physical evidence are in the Eastern District because that is where four of the

4

key stores at issue are located. Id. ¶¶ 3-4. And the parties agree that transfer will ease their travel

5

burdens. Id. All of the factors set forth in Jones weigh in favor of transfer or are neutral. As the

6

Court suspected from the beginning, there is no reason why this case should not be transferred.

7

IV.

8
9
10

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS the parties’ stipulation and

TRANSFERS this entire action to the Eastern District of California. The Clerk of the Court is
instructed to immediately effectuate the transfer.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 25, 2016

14
15
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3