Haller v. Mabus

Filing 15

ORDER Granting 11 Motion to Transfer Venue. Case transferred to District of Arizona. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 4/5/2016. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rlu)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

DAVID HALLER,

Case No.: 15cv1444 BTM (DHB)
Plaintiff,

5

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
TRANSFER VENUE

v.
6
7

RAYMOND E. MAYBUS,
Secretary of the Navy,
Defendant.

8
9
On October 13, 2015, Defendant Raymond Maybus filed a motion to
10
transfer the instant case to the District of Arizona. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff David
11
Haller did not file an opposition brief. For the reasons discussed below,
12
Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.
13
14
I. BACKGROUND
15
Plaintiff’s Complaint includes allegations of sexual harassment and
16
employment discrimination in violation of Title VII. The alleged violations took
17
place while Plaintiff worked as a motorcycle rider coach at the Marine Corps Air
18
Station in Yuma, Arizona (“MCAS Yuma”). (Compl. ¶¶ 9-13.) Following the
19
alleged discrimination, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Equal Employment
20
Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). (Compl. 22.) The EEOC mailed its decision
1
15cv1444 BTM (DHB)

1

to dismiss Plaintiff’s case on April 16, 2015, and Plaintiff subsequently filed this

2

action on June 1, 2015. (Compl. ¶ 22.)

3

Defendant moves to transfer venue on the grounds that the alleged events

4

took place in Arizona and that Plaintiff would have continued to work in Arizona

5

but-for the alleged employment practice.

6
7
8
9

II. DISCUSSION
Title VII includes a venue provision1 that authorizes suit in any district (1)
where the unlawful employment practice was committed; (2) where the

10

employment records are kept; and (3) where the plaintiff would have worked but-

11

for the alleged discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3). See also Passantino v.

12

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Prods., Inc., 212 F.3d 493, 504 (9th Cir. 2000).

13

The statute goes on to state that, “if the [defendant] is not found within any such

14

district, such an action may be brought [where] the [defendant] has his principle

15

office.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3).

16
17

Here, the District of Arizona, not the Southern District of California, is the
proper venue. Plaintiff notes in his complaint that the alleged sexual harassment

18
19
20

Title VII’s venue provision applies over the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391,
because the “shall govern” language in § 2000e-5(f) renders Title VII’s venue provisions
mandatory. See Johnson v. Payless Drug Stores Nw., Inc., 950 F.2d 586, 587-88 (9th Cir.
1991).
1

2
15cv1444 BTM (DHB)

1

occurred in Arizona while he was employed as a motorcycle riding coach at

2

MCAS Yuma. Moreover, as Defendant notes, the record supports the conclusion

3

that Plaintiff would have continued working at MCAS Yuma but-for the alleged

4

unlawful acts.

5

As for the district where the records are kept, Defendant submits the

6

declaration of Erin Carroll, the Director of the Human Resources Office at MCAS

7

Yuma, to demonstrate that the official personnel records are kept in an electronic

8

database. This database is used for human resource functions at the

9

headquarters in Washington, the regional Office of Civilian Human Resources,

10

and at MCAS Yuma. Even though the records are electronic and accessible in

11

multiple districts, the Southern District of California is not a proper venue under

12

the statute because, if nothing more, the employment records were created in

13

Arizona. The facts that the alleged violations took place in Arizona, and that

14

Plaintiff would have continued working in Arizona but-for the alleged employment

15

practices, make the District of Arizona the proper venue for this Title VII case.

16
17
18

III. CONCLUSION
When a plaintiff files a case “laying venue in the wrong division or district,”

19

the district court “shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such

20

case to any district or division in which it should have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. §
3
15cv1444 BTM (DHB)

1

1406(a). Although the Court has the authority to dismiss the instant case, the

2

Defendant moves for transfer of venue, not dismissal.

3

For the reasons discussed above, Defendant’s motion to transfer venue is

4

GRANTED. The Clerk shall TRANSFER the instant action to the United States

5

District Court for the District of Arizona.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated: April 5, 2016

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
4
15cv1444 BTM (DHB)