Ambriz et al v. Matheson Tri-Gas

Filing 25

ORDER GRANTING 16 MOTION TO TRANSFER AND DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT. ***Civil Case Terminated.*** Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/9/2014. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/9/2014)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

7

LARRY AMBRIZ, SALVADOR CARRILLO,
MARCO A. CHAVEZ, RANDALL
COURTNEY, DANIEL MALDONADO, MARK
A. RODRIGUEZ, SR., ALEJANDRO
VEGA, DOUGLAS VIVERO, DAVID
CINTAT, MANUEL SALAZAR, HERSCHEL
SURVINE III, EDWIN PUQUIRRE,

8

Plaintiffs,

5
6

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

ORDER GRANTING
MOTION TO TRANSFER
AND DENYING MOTION
TO DISMISS AS MOOT

v.
MATHESON TRI-GAS,

11
12

No. C 14-1041 CW

Defendant.
________________________________/

13
14

Plaintiffs Larry Ambriz, Salvador Carrillo, Marco A. Chavez,

15

Randall Courtney, Daniel Maldonado, Mark A. Rodriguez, Sr.,

16

Alejandro Vega, Douglas Vivero, David Cintat, Manuel Salazar,

17

Herschel Survine III, and Edwin Puquirre brought this putative

18

wage and hour class action on behalf of themselves and other

19

similarly-situated truck drivers currently or formerly employed by

20

Defendant Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc.

21

this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) for

22

improper venue or, alternatively, to transfer the action to the

23

Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404.

24

oppose.

25

determined that this case was suitable for disposition without

26

oral argument.

27

motion to transfer and DENIES the motion to dismiss as MOOT.

28

Defendant now moves to dismiss

Plaintiffs

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11(b), the Court

Having considered the papers, the Court GRANTS the

1
2

BACKGROUND
Defendant is a Delaware corporation, headquartered in Basking

3

Ridge, New Jersey.

4

internationally and has several branch locations in both northern

5

and southern California, including: Los Nietos, Menlo Park,

6

Newark, Paso Robles, Rancho Cucamonga, Riverside, Salinas, San

7

Jose, San Marcos, Santa Cruz, Santa Maria, Santa Rosa, Ukiah,

8

Sacramento, Vacaville, Vernon, and Irwindale.

Timmons Decl. ¶ 4.

Defendant operates

Id. ¶ 6.

The named Plaintiffs are truck drivers employed by Defendant.

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

All of the named Plaintiffs reside in Los Angeles County, which is

11

situated within the Central District of California.

12

Decl. ¶¶ 7-28, 30-31.

13

were based out of Defendant’s Vernon and Rancho Cucamonga

14

locations, where they were supervised directly by on-site

15

managers.

16

routes spanning throughout California, including the Northern

17

District of California.

18

Defendant’s dispatch locations purportedly set their own

19

attendance and break-recording policies and practices.

20

Decl. ¶¶ 10-11.

21

hard-copy timesheets; for example, the Vernon location has hard-

22

copy timesheets kept on site.

23

Tamborrino

At all relevant times, the named Plaintiffs

Id. ¶¶ 7-9.

The named Plaintiffs frequently drive

Maldonado Decl. ¶¶ 4-7.

All of

Tamborrino

Each location maintains its own electronic and

Id. ¶ 6, 29.

Plaintiffs brought this suit against Defendant, alleging the

24

following causes of action: (1) failure to provide meal periods as

25

required by California Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 and Wage Order

26

No. 9-2001, (2) failure to provide rest breaks as required by the

27

same, (3) violation of California Labor Code § 2699 of the Private

28

Attorney General Act (PAGA), (4) violation of Business &
2

1

Professions Code § 17200, and (5) waiting time penalties under

2

California Labor Code §§ 201-203.

3

“all current and former California-based truck drivers employed by

4

Matheson four years prior to the filing” of the complaint.

5

Amended Complaint (FAC) ¶ 28.

6
7

Plaintiffs seek to represent

First

DISCUSSION
Defendant argues that the case should be transferred to the
Central District of California, which is a more convenient forum.

9

For the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil

11

action to another district where it may have been brought.

12

U.S.C. § 1404(a).

13

District.

14

28

This case could have been filed in the Central

See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

The court makes an “individualized, case-by-case

15

consideration of convenience and fairness.”

16

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

17

the Ninth Circuit provided a number of factors that may be

18

considered: (1) the location where the relevant events occurred,

19

(2) the forum that is most familiar with the governing law,

20

(3) the plaintiff’s choice of forum, (4) the respective parties’

21

contacts with the forum, (5) the contacts relating to the

22

plaintiff’s cause of action in the chosen forum, (6) the

23

differences in the costs of litigating in the two forums, (7) the

24

availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of

25

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

26

sources of proof.

27

burden of proof and generally “must make a strong showing of

28

inconvenience to warrant upsetting the plaintiff's choice of

Id.

Jones v. GNC
In Jones,

The party seeking transfer bears the

3

1

forum.”

2

843 (9th Cir. 1986).

3

for transfer to a more convenient forum, not to a forum likely to

4

prove equally convenient or inconvenient.”

5

376 U.S. 612, 645-46 (1964).

6

1.

7

Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834,
This is because section 1404(a) “provides

Van Dusen v. Barrack,

Plaintiffs’ choice of forum and the parties’ relevant
contacts to the forum

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ choice of forum should be
8
given less weight.

When “an individual brings a derivative suit

9
or represents a class, the named plaintiff's choice of forum is
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

given less weight.”

Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir.

11
1987) (citations omitted).

Moreover, where the plaintiff does not

12
reside in the forum, or “the operative facts have not occurred
13
within the forum and the forum has no interest in the parties or
14
subject matter, [the] plaintiff’s choice is entitled to only
15
minimal consideration.”

Park v. Dole Fresh Vegetables, Inc., 964

16
F. Supp. 2d 1088, 1094 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (quoting Lou, 834 F.2d at
17
739).
18
Because Plaintiffs seek to represent a class and do not
19
reside in this district, their choice of forum is not entitled to
20
great weight.

The named Plaintiffs do not reside in the Northern

21
District and thus cannot claim party convenience.

While some of

22
the putative class members reside in this district, the general
23
rule is that only the named Plaintiffs’ residence is relevant to
24
considerations of convenience.

See Levine v. Entrust Grp., Inc.,

25
2012 WL 6087399, at *4 (N.D. Cal.).
26
Plaintiffs draw attention to the fact that they drove routes
27
running through this district and as a result some alleged meal
28
4

1

and rest break violations took place here.

2

drove routes in the Central District, as well.

3

management decisions causing the alleged violations were made by

4

branch location managers in the Central District.

5

are central to Plaintiffs’ claims.

6

operative facts occurred in the Central District.

7

Plaintiffs do not reside here and most of the operative facts

8

occurred elsewhere, their legitimate interest in this forum is

9

minimal.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

2.

11

But Plaintiffs often
Moreover, the

These policies

A substantial portion of the
Because

The convenience of non-party witnesses and the ease of
access to sources of proof

The convenience of non-party witnesses should be given
12
significant consideration because they may be compelled to testify
13
unwillingly.

Strigliabotti v. Franklin Res., Inc., 2004 WL

14
2254556, at *17 (N.D. Cal.).

Here, the named Plaintiffs’ on-site

15
managers have relevant information about Plaintiffs’ work
16
schedules and are likely to testify as witnesses.

Because the

17
named Plaintiffs’ on-site managers all reside in the Central
18
District, it will be more convenient for them to travel to a
19
Central District courthouse rather than a Northern District one.
20
As for sources of proof, technological developments have reduced
21
the burden of retrieving and transporting documents, which has
22
diminished the importance of this factor in the transfer analysis.
23
David v. Alphin, 2007 WL 39400, at *3 (N.D. Cal.).

Nevertheless,

24
each branch location maintains hard-copy timesheets regarding its
25
employees.

Because these highly relevant records are stored

26
within the Central District, this factor favors transfer.
27
28
5

Harms

1

v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 2007 WL 1430085, at *2 (N.D.

2

Cal.).

3

3.

4

The forum’s familiarity with the governing law and
relative court congestion

Both forums are federal district courts are located in
5
California, and so they are equally familiar with the applicable
6
California and federal law.

The difference in court congestion

7
between the two districts is insignificant.

These factors are

8
therefore neutral.
9
4.

The comparative costs of litigating in the two forums

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

Plaintiff argues that the comparative financial abilities of
11
the parties should be considered and the costs of litigation
12
should fall to Defendant, a large corporation which is better
13
equipped to withstand the costs of litigation than the individual
14
truck drivers.

This would be persuasive if Plaintiffs showed that

15
litigating in this forum would be more cost efficient than
16
litigating in the Central District.

But Plaintiffs all reside and

17
work in the Central District.

Their counsel also is located in

18
the Central District.

Litigating in the Central District would

19
likely be more cost effective for both parties.

See Van Dusen,

20
376 U.S. at 616 (“the purpose of the section is to prevent the
21
waste of time, energy and money and to protect litigants,
22
witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and
23
expense”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Accordingly, this

24
factor strongly favors transfer.
25
On balance, the interests of justice and convenience outweigh
26
the named Plaintiffs’ original choice of forum.

The Court

27
transfers the case to the Central District of California because
28
6

1

it will be a more convenient forum for both parties as well as the

2

non-party witnesses involved.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5
6

Dated: 6/9/2014
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7