Erami v. JPMorgan Chase Bank

Filing 32

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting 18 Defendant's Motion to Transfer. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MITRA ERAMI,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO TRANSFER

v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,

Re: Docket No. 18

Defendant.

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

Case No. 15-cv-02547-EMC

13

Having considered the parties’ briefs and accompanying submissions, as well as the oral

14

argument of counsel, for the reasons stated on the record, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to

15

transfer Erami v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 3:15-CV-02547-EMC, to the Central District of

16
17

California. This order memorializes and supplements the oral ruling. Transfer would achieve the
underlying purpose behind 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) in preventing waste of judicial resources as well

18

as protecting the parties and witnesses against unnecessary inconvenience and expense. See Van
19
20

Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964). In balancing the factors used in determining

21

transfers under § 1404(a), the convenience of the witnesses and benefits gained by consolidating

22

the Erami action with the pending Henry action in the Central District, outweigh the weight given

23

to Plaintiff Erami’s choice of forum.

24
25

Typically a court gives great weight to a plaintiff’s choice of forum, but in the class action
context, the named plaintiff’s choice of forum is given less weight. Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d

26
27
28

730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987). However, given Plaintiff’s residence in the Northern District and the
fact that the events relating to the Plaintiff’s individual cause of action occurred in the Northern

1
2

District, Plaintiff’s choice of forum is still given significant weight. See id.
The convenience of the witnesses, however, weighs in favor of transfer because the

3

substantial majority of Assistant Branch Managers (ABMs) reside in the Central District. The

4

ABMs are likely to provide relevant testimony regarding their individual duties, which may

5

inform analysis of the claimed exempt status here.

6

Lastly and perhaps the most important factor in favor of transfer, are the benefits gained by

7

consolidating the two cases in a single forum. The substantial overlap between the FLSA and
8
9

California Labor Code (CLC) requirements for exempt status supports consolidation; this may

Furthermore, both cases involve the same arbitration agreement which will affect a large number

12
For the Northern District of California

render coordinated discovery and adjudication more efficient and prevent inconsistent results.

11

United States District Court

10

of the putative Erami class may be the subject of a motion to compel arbitration (already filed in

13

Henry) and may also inform the scope of the class subject to certification. Transfer would

14

therefore prevent the waste of judicial resources and possibility of inconsistent judgments. For the
15
16
17

foregoing reasons, Defendant Chase’s motion to transfer is hereby granted.
This order disposes of Docket No. 18.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

22
23

Dated: September 28, 2015
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

2