Walden et al v. General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc.

Filing 23

Order by Hon. Vince Chhabria granting 22 Stipulation to Transfer the Case to the Southern District of CA.(knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/24/2014) [Transferred from California Northern on 6/25/2014.]

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

BARBARA A. FITZGERALD, State Bar No. 151038
JASON S. MILLS, State Bar No. 225126
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
300 South Grand Avenue
Twenty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071-3132
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 213.612.2501
E-mail: [e-mail]
E-mail: [e-mail]
JENNIFER A. TOMLIN, State Bar No. 261220
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
2 Palo Alto Square
3000 El Camino Real, Suite 700
Palo Alto, California 94306
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 650.843.4001
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
GENERAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY, INC.
Additional counsel on next page

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

18
19
20

JERRY WALDEN and MATTHEW
WILLIS, on behalf of themselves, all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

21
22
23
24

v.

Case No. CV 14-01699 VC
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA UNDER 28 U.S.C. §1404(a)

GENERAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Virginia
corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,

25

Defendants.

26
27
28

M ORGAN , L EWIS &
B OCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO

DB2/ 25153674.2

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TRANSFERRING VENUE
CASE NO. CV 14-01699 VC

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

SHAUN SETAREH, State Bar No. 204514
ADRIENNE HERRERA, State Bar No. 278640
SARAH CHRISTENSON, State Bar No. 291548
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 711
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
E-mail: [e-mail]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
JERRY WALDEN and MATTHEW WILLIS
on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

M ORGAN , L EWIS &
B OCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO

DB2/ 25153674.2

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TRANSFERRING VENUE
CASE NO. CV 14-01699 VC

1

Defendant General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. (“Defendant”) and Plaintiffs

2

Jerry Walden and Matthew Willis (“Plaintiffs”), the parties to the above-entitled action

3

(collectively, the “Parties”), through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as

4

follows:

5

WHEREAS, on or about March 13, 2014, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all

6

others similarly situated, filed a purported class action in the Superior Court of the State of

7

California for the County of Alameda, entitled JERRY WALDEN and MATTHEW WILLIS, on

8

behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated v. GENERAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION

9

TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Virginia corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case Number RG

10

14717315 (“Complaint”);

11

WHEREAS, on April 11, 2014, Defendant filed its Answer to Plaintiffs’ unverified

12

Complaint and removed the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of

13

California based on federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction pursuant to the Class

14

Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”) and 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). See ECF Nos. 1, 1-2;

15

WHEREAS, on May 23, 2014, Defendant filed its Motion to Transfer Venue to the United

16

States District Court for the Southern District of California Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (the

17

“Motion”), asserting that this case should be transferred to the Southern District of California

18

based on the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice. See ECF No.

19

14;

20

WHEREAS, the Motion is scheduled for hearing on July 24, 2014;

21

WHEREAS, on June 11, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Non-Opposition and Statement

22

in Support of Defendant’s Motion. See ECF No. 21;

23

WHEREAS, the Parties have met and conferred to discuss the merits of Defendant’s

24

Motion and agree that this action should be transferred to the Southern District of California

25

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a);

26

WHEREAS, the Parties stipulate that transfer of this action to the Southern District of

27

California is appropriate because: (1) the Southern District has subject matter jurisdiction over

28

this case under federal question and diversity jurisdiction and the CAFA; (2) Defendant is subject

M ORGAN , L EWIS &
B OCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO

DB2/ 25153674.2

1

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TRANSFERRING VENUE
CASE NO. CV 14-01699 VC

1

to personal jurisdiction in the Southern District because it conducts business in the Southern

2

District; and (3) venue is proper in the Southern District because Defendant has conducted

3

business in the Southern District throughout all time periods relevant to this action;

4
5
6

WHEREAS, the Parties stipulate that the Southern District is the proper venue for this
action for reasons including, but not limited to, the following:
●

7
8

relevant to this action;
●

9
10

Neither Plaintiff has resided in the Northern District during any time period

The purported conduct that underlies Plaintiffs’ allegations occurred “outside the
United States” and did not occur in the Northern District;

●

The majority of Defendant’s employees (including potential witnesses and

11

putative class members) are located in the Southern District, with 269 of

12

Defendant’s 517 California employees located in the Southern District, compared

13

to 64 employees in the Northern District;

14

●

Defendant’s two largest California offices are located in the Southern District,

15

with 115 of Defendant’s employees working at either of Defendant’s San Diego

16

or Chula Vista offices, compared to 7 employees working in Defendant’s single

17

Northern District office in Santa Clara;

18

●

19
20

Lead counsel for all Parties are located in the Central District, which is
significantly closer to the Southern District than the Northern District;

●

Plaintiff Willis executed the agreement that is subject of this action in San

21

Clemente, California, which is in the southern most part of the Central District,

22

on the border of the Southern District;

23

●

Plaintiff Willis commenced his travel to his overseas work location (where the

24

allegations underlying Plaintiffs’ claims occurred) from Orange County,

25

California, which is located in the Southern Division of the Central District and is

26

significantly closer to the Southern District than the Northern District;

27

●

28
M ORGAN , L EWIS &
B OCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO

Plaintiff Walden executed the subject agreement in and commenced travel from a
location outside of California;

DB2/ 25153674.2

2

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TRANSFERRING VENUE
CASE NO. CV 14-01699 VC

1

●

Given Defendant’s substantial operations in the Southern District of California

2

relative to other California districts, the Southern District has the most significant

3

“local interest” in the subject controversy;

4

THEREFORE, the Parties hereby stipulate and agree that:

5

1.

In light of the above factors, the Parties request that this action be transferred in its

6

entirety from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San

7

Francisco Division, to the to the United States District Court, Southern District of California,

8

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

9
10
11
12

2.

The Parties further request that the Court vacate the July 24, 2014 hearing on

Defendant’s Motion (as well as the Case Management Conference scheduled for the same day).
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated: June 18, 2014

13

SETAREH LAW GROUP
By

14

/s/ Shaun Setareh (as authorized on 6/18/14)
SHAUN SETAREH

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
JERRY WALDEN and MATTHEW WILLIS
on behalf of themselves, all others similarly
situated

15
16
17
18

Dated: June 19, 2014

19

By

20
21

/s/ Jason S. Mills
BARBARA A. FITZGERALD
JASON S. MILLS
JENNIFER A. TOMLIN

Attorneys for Defendant
GENERAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY, INC.

22
23
24

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

FILER ATTESTATION

26

Pursuant to L.R. 5-1(i)(3) regarding signatures, I, Jason S. Mills, attest that concurrence in
the filing of this document has been obtained from the other signatory. I declare under penalty of
perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 15th day of June, 2014, at Los Angeles.

27

By:

25

28
M ORGAN , L EWIS &
B OCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO

DB2/ 25153674.2

3

/s/ Jason S. Mills
Jason S. Mills
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TRANSFERRING VENUE
CASE NO. CV 14-01699 VC

ORDER

1
2

For the reasons described in the Parties’ Stipulation, and for good cause shown, IT IS

3

HEREBY ORDERED that this action be transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the United

4

States District Court, Southern District of California. The hearing on Defendant’s Motion to

5

Transfer Venue to the Southern District of California and the Case Management Conference set

6

for July 24, 2014, are vacated.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

June 23, 2014
DATE: ______________________

10

_____________________________________
HONORABLE VINCE CHHABRIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
M ORGAN , L EWIS &
B OCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO

DB2/ 25153674.2

4

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TRANSFERRING VENUE
CASE NO. CV 14-01699 VC