Garlough v. Trader Joe's Company

Filing 29

ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting 21 Motion to Transfer Case. (tehlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2015)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

KEITH GARLOUGH, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

5

v.

6
7

TRADER JOE’S COMPANY,

Case No. 15-cv-01278-TEH
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

Defendant.

8
9

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Trader Joe’s Company’s (“Trader

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Joe’s”) motion to transfer venue to the Central District of California. Mot. at 1 (Docket

12

No. 21). After carefully considering the arguments of the parties at the hearing and in the

13

papers submitted, the Court hereby GRANTS Trader Joe’s motion, for the reasons set forth

14

below.

15
16

BACKGROUND

17

This putative class action was initially filed by Plaintiff Keith Garlough

18

(“Garlough”) in the Northern District of California in March of this year. Compl. at 1

19

(Docket No. 1). Garlough lives, works and claims to have been injured by Trader Joe’s in

20

the Northern District of California. Id. ¶¶ 11, 29-33. Plaintiffs Lance Alicaya and Steve

21

Meylink were added as Plaintifffs in the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), filed in May;

22

both individuals live, work and claim to have been injured by Trader Joe’s in the Eastern

23

District of California. FAC ¶¶ 42-57 (Docket No. 9). Plaintiffs allege that Trader Joe’s

24

engaged in age discrimination during a companywide restructuring in April or May of

25

2014 (the “Refresh”), when upper-level employees aged forty or older were demoted and

26

replaced with younger, less-qualified employees. Id. ¶ 7. While Plaintiffs bring this case

27

as a proposed class action, they have yet to be certified as a class.

28

1

Trader Joe’s is a California corporation with its principal place of business in

2

Monrovia – located in the Central District of California. Mead Decl., Ex. 1 to Mot. at 2

3

(Docket No. 21-1). While there are Trader Joe’s store locations throughout California, the

4

largest concentration of stores in California is in Southern California – 107 are in Southern

5

California, compared to 65 in Northern California. Id. Accordingly, more current and

6

former Trader Joe’s employees live in Southern California than in Northern California. Id.

7

Trader Joe’s has identified five former employees who currently reside in Southern
California who will likely be important witnesses in this case, as they each held positions

9

of authority and were employed with the company during the Refresh. Mead Decl. at 3-4.

10

Four of these individuals are former store managers, or “Captains,” who participated in or

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

were affected by the Refresh. Id. at 3. The fifth is a former Regional Vice President who

12

oversaw approximately twenty stores in Southern California during the Refresh. Id. at 4.

13

At the hearing, Trader Joe’s stated that two comparable former Captains live in Northern

14

California, but no former Regional Managers do.

15
16
17

LEGAL STANDARD
“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district

18

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

19

been brought . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In order to transfer venue, a court “must

20

therefore make two findings: First, that the transferee court is one where the action ‘might

21

have been brought,’ and second, that the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the

22

interest of justice favor transfer.” Minh Hong v. Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC, No. 12-CV-

23

1756 TEH, 2012 WL 5077066, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2012) (citation omitted).

24
25
26
27
28

In evaluating the convenience of the parties and witnesses, courts may consider:
(1) the location where the relevant agreements were negotiated
and executed, (2) the state that is most familiar with the
governing law, (3) the plaintiff’s choice of forum, (4) the
respective parties’ contacts with the forum, (5) the contacts
relating to the plaintiff’s cause of action in the chosen forum,
(6) the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums,
(7) the availability of compulsory process to compel attendance
2

1

of unwilling non-party witnesses, and (8) the ease of access to
sources of proof.

2

Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000). Additional factors

3

include the feasibility of consolidation of other claims and the relative congestion of the

4

courts. Barnes & Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp., 823 F. Supp. 2d. 980, 993 (N.D. Cal. 2011).

5

A motion to transfer lies within the broad discretion of the district court, and must

6

be determined on an individualized basis. Jones, 211 F.3d at 498. The party seeking to

7

transfer bears the burden of persuasion. See Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v.

8

Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979).

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

DISCUSSION
Trader Joe’s moves to transfer venue to the Central District of California; as the

12

moving party, Trader Joe’s bears the burden of persuasion. Savage, 611 F.2d at 279.

13

As a threshold matter, Trader Joe’s must first show that the action could have

14

initially been filed in the Central District. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). A civil action may be

15

brought in “a judicial district in which any defendant resides . . . .” Id. § 1391(b)(1).

16

Trader Joe’s correctly asserts that this matter could have been filed in the Central District,

17

because Trader Joe’s headquarters is located in Monrovia, California, so it is a resident of

18

the Central District. Mot. at 4; see also Reply at 2 (Docket No. 26). At the hearing,

19

Plaintiffs agreed that the case could have been brought in the Central District.

20

Trader Joe’s must also demonstrate that the convenience of the parties and

21

witnesses and the interest of justice favor a transfer of venue. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). While

22

Trader Joe’s motion addressed many of the factors that the Court may weigh when

23

considering such a motion, several of those factors are either neutral or insignificant in this

24

case – for example, the relevant employment agreements were executed in both districts,

25

and both courts are roughly equally congested. See Mead Decl. at 4; compare Mot. at 10

26

with Opp’n at 12 (Docket No. 25). The most salient factors here are the convenience of

27

the parties, the convenience of witnesses, and the availability of compulsory process to

28

3

1

compel the attendance of non-party witnesses at trial. Each of these factors is discussed in

2

turn, below.

3
4
5

I.

The Convenience of the Parties Favors Transfer
The convenience of the parties favors transferring this case to the Central District.

Ordinarily, plaintiffs will file in the district that is most convenient for them, and the

7

plaintiffs’ choice of forum is accordingly given “great weight” in non-class action cases.

8

Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987). However, “when an individual brings

9

a derivative suit or represents a class, the named plaintiff’s choice of forum is given less

10

weight.” Id. As the Ninth Circuit has explained, “In judging the weight to be accorded

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

[plaintiff’s] choice of forum, consideration must be given to the extent of both [plaintiff’s]

12

and [defendant’s] contacts with the forum, including those relating to [plaintiff’s] cause of

13

action.” Id.

14

In putative class actions, courts routinely consider the location and concentration of

15

putative class members in deciding motions to transfer. For example, in Seifi v. Mercedes-

16

Benz USA, LLC, No. 12-cv-5493 TEH, 2013 WL 1345132 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2013), this

17

Court concluded that the case should not be transferred to the District of New Jersey

18

because “the Northern District of California [was] indisputably a more convenient forum

19

for members of the proposed class . . . as well as for the named plaintiffs,” where “all

20

proposed class members [were] located in California . . . .” Id. at *2; see also Roe v.

21

Intellicorp Records, Inc., No. 12-cv-02567 YGR, 2012 WL 3727323, at *3 (N.D. Cal.

22

Aug. 27, 2012) (transferring putative class action where plaintiff was not a resident of

23

California, none of the operative facts occurred in the district and defendants offered

24

evidence that approximately 97% of class members were not residents of California); Ellis

25

v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 372 F. Supp. 2d 530, 544 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (“Courts may take

26

into account the distribution of a putative class in assessing transfer requests.”), rev’d in

27

part on other grounds by 657 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2011).

28

However, even in class actions where the named plaintiffs represent members in
4

1

other districts, the plaintiffs’ choice of forum is given “significant” weight, so long as the

2

named plaintiffs actually reside in or have some connection to their chosen forum. Rafton

3

v. Rydex Series Funds, No. 10-cv-1171 CRB, 2010 WL 2629579, at *2-4 (N.D. Cal. June

4

29, 2010). Rafton was a putative class action in which the named plaintiff alleged that the

5

defendants violated securities laws by disseminating misleading prospectuses. Id. In their

6

motion to transfer venue to the District of Maryland, the defendants argued that the named

7

plaintiff’s choice of forum should be given little or no weight, because he sought to

8

represent a nationwide class and because the “operative facts” of the case occurred in

9

Maryland, where the alleged misleading documents originated. Id. at *3. The court
rejected the defendants’ argument, finding that they had not made a “sufficiently strong

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

showing of inconvenience to overcome Plaintiff’s forum choice,” where the named

12

plaintiff resided in the Northern District, received the allegedly problematic materials here,

13

and the defendants operated an office in this district and marketed here. Id. at *2.

14

Although courts routinely consider the distribution of putative class members in

15

deciding a motion to transfer, the Court recognizes that the convenience of putative class

16

members other than the named Plaintiffs will become irrelevant if class certification is

17

ultimately denied. Although the Court does not now consider the merits or probability of

18

class certification, the Court nonetheless discounts somewhat the weight given to the

19

convenience of the putative class because of this risk.

20

Here, transfer to the Central District would be significantly more convenient for

21

Trader Joe’s and for a majority of putative class members. Trader Joe’s headquarters is

22

located in Monrovia, California, which is in the Central District. Mead Decl. at 2. It is

23

undisputed that the Central District would be more convenient for Trader Joe’s itself.

24

More importantly, however, there are more putative class members in the Central

25

District. Id. at 2-4. There are approximately 172 Trader Joe’s store locations in

26

California, of which approximately 107 are located in Southern California, and

27

approximately 65 are located in Northern California. Id. at 2. It must be noted that Trader

28

Joe’s provided these statistics for “Northern” and “Southern California,” rather than by
5

1

federal judicial district. Even so, this evidence suggests that many more current and

2

former employees, who would be putative class members, reside in or near the Central

3

District. If a class is ultimately certified, it will be more convenient for the majority of

4

class members for the case to proceed in the Central District, because they can more easily

5

participate in court proceedings there. The distribution of putative class members

6

therefore favors transfer.

7

Plaintiffs ignore the consideration of convenience owed to putative class members,

8

focusing their argument instead on the convenience of the three named Plaintiffs

9

themselves. Specifically, Plaintiffs assert that Plaintiff Garlough – the individual who
initially filed the complaint – was injured in the Northern District, and continues to work

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

and reside in this District, in Petaluma and Sonoma, respectively. FAC ¶¶ 21, 37. The

12

other two named Plaintiffs, Alicaya and Meylink, live in the Eastern District, near

13

Sacramento, which is much closer to San Francisco than to Los Angeles. Id. ¶¶ 22, 23. It

14

is undeniable that transferring the case to the Central District would be inconvenient for

15

the named Plaintiffs. Also, Trader Joe’s still has approximately 65 stores in Northern

16

California. Relying on Rafton, Plaintiffs argue that their residence in Northern California,

17

plus Trader Joe’s significant presence here, means that their choice of the Northern District

18

should be given significant weight, even though they are representing a statewide class.

19

Opp’n at 3-4.

20

Even so, Plaintiffs have not sufficiently addressed the inconvenience to their

21

proposed class members that would be caused by maintaining this case in the Northern

22

District. This case is distinguishable from Rafton, because in that nationwide class action,

23

the court did not find that the class was heavily concentrated in a particular geographic

24

area. See 2010 WL 2629579, at *3-4. Plaintiff’s argument that considering the

25

distribution of putative class members will always require transferring putative class

26

actions out of the Northern District is not persuasive, because other factors, such as the

27

location of witnesses and other evidence, could make up for the class members’

28

6

1

distribution in the appropriate case. In this case, however, those concerns only reinforce

2

this factor, as discussed more below.
Trader Joe’s persuasively argues that, while the Northern District might be more

3
4

convenient for the named Plaintiffs, the Central District would be significantly more

5

convenient for a majority of the putative class members. Reply at 7. Trader Joe’s has met

6

its burden to overcome Plaintiffs’ choice of forum, and shown that the convenience of the

7

parties favors transfer.

8
9
10

II.

The Convenience of the Witnesses Strongly Favors Transfer
The convenience of the witnesses also favors transferring the case to the Central

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

District. “‘The relative convenience to the witnesses is often recognized as the most

12

important factor to be considered in ruling on a motion under § 1404(a).’” Saleh v. Titan

13

Corp., 361 F. Supp. 2d. 1152, 1160 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (quoting State Street Capital Corp. v.

14

Dente, 855 F. Supp. 192, 197 (S.D. Tex. 1994)). The convenience of non-party witnesses

15

is of greater importance than that of party witnesses. Saleh, 361 F. Supp. 2d at 1160.

16

Trader Joe’s argues that “[the] most likely witnesses to Plaintiffs’ age

17

discrimination claims are the current and former employees of Trader Joe’s who

18

participated in or were affected by the Refresh.” Mot. at 7. Trader Joe’s argues that a

19

greater number of its current and former employees reside in the Central District, because

20

its headquarters is located there, and it has a greater concentration of stores there. Id.

21

(citing Mead Decl. at 2-3). While the convenience of current Trader Joe’s employees

22

certainly favors transfer, current employees are party witnesses, and their convenience is

23

weighed less heavily than that of non-party witnesses.

24

Trader Joe’s more compelling argument focuses on the inconvenience of non-party

25

witnesses, especially former employees. Trader Joe’s has identified a Regional Vice

26

President and four retired store managers (out of twenty nationwide) who reside in or near

27

the Central District. Mead Decl. at 3-4. At the hearing, Trader Joe’s indicated that two

28

comparable former Captains, but no former Regional Vice Presidents, currently reside in
7

1

Northern California. The location of the identified non-party witnesses strongly favors

2

transfer.
In response to this concern, Plaintiffs argue that “this case is brought as a

4

representative action, and as such, Plaintiffs’ cause of action will not necessarily turn on

5

the individual testimony of putative members, whether through deposition or trial.” Opp’n

6

at 8. Further, Plaintiffs claim that from their perspective, “the actual key witnesses in this

7

case, certainly with respect to [their] disparate impact claims, will likely be the parties’

8

experts.” Id. at *10. However, neither of these assertions address the convenience of the

9

non-party witnesses that Trader Joe’s has identified and will likely use; rather, Plaintiffs

10

argue that the testimony of these non-party witnesses will be inconsequential to them and

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

3

therefore irrelevant. This argument is unpersuasive, because the convenience of non-party

12

witnesses is of paramount concern, no matter which party calls them. See Metz v. U.S. Life

13

Ins. Co., 674 F. Supp. 2d 1141, 1147-48 (C.D. Cal. 2009).

14

Plaintiffs also argue that Trader Joe’s did not sufficiently identify the non-party

15

witnesses who reside in or near the Central District because it did not provide their names.

16

Opp’n at 8. Plaintiffs rely on Florens Container v. Cho Yang Shipping, 245 F. Supp. 2d

17

1086 (N.D. Cal. 2002), which found, when evaluating the convenience of witnesses, that it

18

was “more persuasive” for a party to set forth the nature of its witnesses’ testimony and

19

why the witnesses were important, than to merely state where the witnesses resided

20

without more context. Id. at 1092-93. Unfortunately for Plaintiffs, Trader Joe’s has done

21

that here, by explaining that these store managers had “primary responsibility” for carrying

22

out the Refresh, Mead Decl. at 2, that these individuals cooperated with their Regional

23

Vice Presidents to make staffing decisions, id. at 3, and that they coordinated with the

24

corporate headquarters to make the resulting position changes. Id. Compared to Plaintiffs’

25

silence regarding their non-party witnesses, Trader Joe’s account is the “more persuasive.”

26

See Florens, 245 F. Supp. 2d at 1092.

27
28

The Court recognizes that Plaintiffs have offered to depose all witnesses close to
their residences, including in Southern California. See Opp’n at 7. While this offer
8

1

certainly reduces the inconvenience to both party and non-party witnesses, it does not

2

sufficiently address the inconvenience that any Southern California witnesses would suffer

3

in travelling to the Northern District for trial, discussed more below.
The Court finds that the convenience of the party and non-party witnesses who

4
5

reside in or near the Central District strongly favors transferring the case there.

6
7

III.

The Court’s Ability to Compel the Attendance of Non-Party Witnesses
Somewhat Favors Transfer

9

Finally, the relative ability of a court in the Central District to compel the

10

production of evidence and the attendance of witnesses somewhat favors transfer in this

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

case. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(1)(A) authorizes a court to issue a subpoena

12

commanding a person to attend a trial, hearing or deposition within 100 miles of where the

13

person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person. Additionally, Rule

14

45(c)(1)(B) allows a court to command a party to attend a trial, deposition, or hearing

15

anywhere in the state where they reside, are employed, or regularly transact business in

16

person; for non-parties, the court may only command their statewide attendance at trial,

17

and only if they would not incur “substantial expense.”

18

These provisions of Rule 45 were added to the Rule in 2013, and they have not yet

19

been thoroughly addressed by other courts. The commentary to the 2013 amendment

20

clarifies that, “When travel over 100 miles [to attend a trial] could impose substantial

21

expense on the [non-party] witness, the party that served the subpoena may pay that

22

expense and the court can condition enforcement of the subpoena on such payment.”

23

The other sections of the Rule provide useful insight into what constitutes

24

“substantial expense.” Rule 45(d)(2)(B)(ii) “states in relevant part that when a court orders

25

compliance with a subpoena over an objection, ‘the order must protect a person who is

26

neither a party nor a party’s officer from significant expense resulting from compliance.’”

27

Legal Voice v. Stormans Inc., 738 F.3d 1178, 1184 (9th Cir. 2013). In Legal Voice, the

28

Ninth Circuit held that cost shifting is mandatory in all instances in which a non-party
9

1

incurs “significant expense” from compliance with a subpoena. Id. And, in that case, the

2

court had “no trouble concluding that $20,000 [in expenses related to compliance with the

3

subpoena were] ‘significant.’” Id. at 1185.

4
5
6

Additionally, Rule 45(d)(3)(A)(ii) requires the court to quash or modify a subpoena
that “requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c).”
Here, as discussed above, Trader Joe’s argues that the most likely witnesses to be

7

called are current and former Trader Joe’s employees. Mot. at 7. Moreover, Trader Joe’s

8

asserts that many of these individuals are residents of the Central District, because the

9

company is headquartered there and has the majority of its California stores there. Mead
Decl. at 3-4. At least five identified non-party witnesses, and possibly more, work and

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

reside greater than 100 miles from San Francisco, and this Court has a somewhat limited

12

subpoena power over such individuals – the Court can only compel them to attend trial

13

here if they would not incur substantial expense.

14

Plaintiffs respond to this argument by emphasizing that the Court still has the power

15

to compel non-party witnesses to testify at trial so long as they would not incur substantial

16

expense. Opp’n at 9-10 (emphasis added).

17

Given that there is no actual evidence regarding the costs that non-party witnesses

18

will incur if they are required to travel from the Central District to the Northern District,

19

the Court cannot now find conclusively that such expenses would be substantial in this

20

case. What is clear is that a court in the Central District would not even need to perform a

21

“substantial expense” inquiry for the identified non-party witnesses who reside in Southern

22

California, because the identified witnesses reside within 100 miles of the Los Angeles

23

courthouses. Mead Decl. at 4.

24

A court in the Central District would have the power to compel the attendance of

25

non-party witnesses who live within 100 miles of the Los Angeles courthouses at both

26

depositions and trial in the Central District, without inquiring as to whether such witnesses

27

would incur substantial expense. By contrast, this Court can only compel their attendance

28

at trial if they would not incur substantial expense. Although these differences in the two
10

1

courts’ abilities to subpoena non-party witnesses are not very significant, they do militate

2

somewhat in favor of transferring the case to the Central District.

3
4
5

CONCLUSION
After establishing that this matter could have initially been filed in the Central

6

District, Trader Joe’s demonstrated that transferring this case there would be more

7

convenient for itself, for the majority of putative class members, and for several non-party

8

witnesses, and that the Central District Court would also have a broader subpoena power

9

over non-party witnesses. For these reasons, Trader Joe’s motion to transfer venue to the

10

Central District of California is GRANTED.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16

Dated: 08/04/15

_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

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

11