Stone v. U.S. Security Associates, Inc.
Filing
25
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE AND GRANTING REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 17 Motion to Change Venue. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2015) [Transferred from California Northern on 5/22/2015.]
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
ROBERT STONE,
Case No. 15-cv-00235-JST
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10
U.S. SECURITY ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Defendant.
Re: ECF No. 17
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
TRANSFER OF VENUE AND
GRANTING REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL
NOTICE
Before the Court is a Motion for Transfer of Venue filed by Defendant U.S. Security
12
13
Associates, Inc. (“USSA”), ECF No. 17, and a request for judicial notice in support of the motion,
14
ECF No. 17-1. Plaintiff Robert Stone opposes transfer. ECF No. 18. For the reasons set forth
15
below, the Court will grant both the motion to transfer and the request for judicial notice.
16
I.
17
BACKGROUND
In this putative class action for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15
18
U.S.C. section 1681, et seq., Plaintiff Stone alleges that USSA uses noncompliant disclosure forms
19
to procure, or cause to be procured, consumer reports for employment purposes. Compl., ECF No.
20
1. Stone is a California resident who applied for employment with USSA around February 2014.
21
Id. ¶¶ 5, 14. He alleges that, as part of the employment application process, he signed an
22
Applicant Consent Form that did not comply with the FCRA, and that subsequently USSA
23
procured or caused to be procured a consumer report concerning him from a credit reporting
24
agency. Id. ¶¶ 14-15. Stone seeks to represent a class of:
25
26
27
28
All persons residing in the United States (including all territories
and other political subdivisions of the United States) as to whom
U.S. Security Associates, Inc. or any of its related companies
procured or caused to be procured a consumer report for
employment purposes within the period prescribed by FCRA, 15
U.S.C. § 1681p without first providing a clear and conspicuous
disclosure in writing to the consumer at any time before the report
1
2
was procured or caused to be procured, in a document that consists
solely of the disclosure, that a consumer report may be obtained for
employment purposes.
3
Id. ¶ 22. On his employment application, Stone listed his place of residence as Hawthorne,
4
California. Declaration of Carol Longmore (“Longmore Decl.”) Ex. A, ECF No. 17-6. Stone was
5
hired to work for a USSA branch in Commerce, California, and assigned to a site located in Los
6
Angeles, California. Longmore Decl., ECF No. 17-4 ¶ 10.
7
Defendant USSA, a security services company, is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
8
Roswell, Georgia. ECF No. 13 ¶ 7; Longmore Decl. ¶ 2. It has operations in approximately 134
9
cities in 41 states. Longmore Decl. ¶ 2. Carol Longmore, the USSA Compliance Director
responsible for USSA’s background check policies and procedures, works at the Roswell
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
headquarters and lives nearby. Id. ¶¶ 1-3. In her role as Compliance Director, Longmore has
12
worked with the Georgia-based USSA Human Resources department, as well as former USSA
13
employees Jim Flowers and Jon Dimalanta, to revise USSA’s Applicant Consent Form, which is
14
intended to comply with the FCRA. Id. ¶ 4. The last known address for Flowers is in Roswell,
15
Georgia, and the last known address for Dimalanta is in Fort Mill, South Carolina. Id.
16
USSA branch offices obtain consent for background checks for employment purposes
17
using either USSA’s Applicant Consent Form or forms provided by the consumer reporting
18
agency that conducts the background check. Id. ¶ 5. During the last five years, USSA has used
19
the services of nine such consumer reporting agencies: three based in New York, four based in
20
Georgia, one based in Pennsylvania, and one based in South Carolina. Id. ¶ 11. Since
21
approximately 2014, USSA has used an applicant tracking system that records electronic
22
signatures on USSA’s Applicant Consent Forms. Id. ¶ 6. In addition, consent forms for hired
23
applicants who begin work with USSA are uploaded to a database that is accessible from USSA’s
24
Georgia headquarters. Id. ¶ 7. Signed consent forms for other applicants, to the extent they have
25
been retained, are available only at the branch offices. Id. ¶ 8.
26
Plaintiff filed his class action complaint in this district on January 16, 2015. ECF No. 1.
27
Defendant filed its answer on February 17, 2015. ECF No. 13. On March 5, 2015, Defendant
28
filed the instant motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of Georgia. ECF No. 17.
2
1
Plaintiff opposes the motion. ECF No. 18.
This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. section 1681p.
2
3
II.
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice of the judicial caseload profiles of
4
5
the Northern District of California and the Northern District of Georgia, which are created by the
6
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and are available on the U.S. Courts website. ECF No.
7
17-1. Pursuant to Rule 201(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, “[t]he court may judicially notice
8
a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial
9
court’s territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose
accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” The Court “must take judicial notice if a party
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
requests it and the court is supplied with the necessary information.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(c). The
12
Court concludes that these documents are proper subjects of judicial notice and grants Defendant’s
13
request. See United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 909 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Courts may take
14
judicial notice of some public records, including the records and reports of administrative bodies”
15
(internal quotation marks omitted)); Caltex Plastics, Inc. v. Great Pacific Packaging, Inc., No. 14-
16
cv-2794-RSWL (JEMx), 2014 WL 4060144, at *5 n.2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2014) (granting request
17
for judicial notice of judicial caseload profiles).
18
III.
MOTION TO TRANSFER
19
A.
LEGAL STANDARD
20
Where venue is proper, “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of
21
justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might
22
have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The purpose of section 1404(a) “is to prevent the waste
23
of time, energy and money and to protect litigants, witnesses, and the public against unnecessary
24
inconvenience and expense.” Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964) (internal quotation
25
marks omitted). It places “discretion in the district court to adjudicate motions for transfer
26
according to an ‘individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.’”
27
Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (quoting Van Dusen, 376 U.S. at 622).
28
In deciding a motion to transfer under section 1404, a court must weigh “a number of case-specific
3
1
factors.” Id.
2
For example, the court 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 of
unwilling non-party witnesses, and (8) the ease of access to sources
of proof.
3
4
5
6
7
Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000). The moving party bears
8
the burden to show that the proposed transferee district is the more appropriate forum for the
9
action. Id. at 499.
10
B.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
DISCUSSION
1.
Venue in the Target District
In considering a motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. section 1404(a), the Court must
13
first determine whether the action could have been brought in the target district. Hoffman v.
14
Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 343-44 (1960). Because USSA maintains its corporate headquarters and is
15
subject to personal jurisdiction in Roswell, Georgia, it is clear that the action “might have been
16
brought” in the Northern District of Georgia. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Accordingly, the Court turns
17
to the question of whether the action should be transferred “[f]or the convenience of parties and
18
witnesses, in the interest of justice.” Id.
19
20
2.
Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum
Plaintiff argues that the motion to transfer venue should be denied in deference to his
21
choice of forum. In most cases, a plaintiff’s choice of forum is accorded “great weight.” Lou v.
22
Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987). But “[w]hen, as here, the plaintiff does not reside in
23
the forum, none of the alleged operative facts with respect to the plaintiff’s claims occurred in this
24
district, and the plaintiff acts as a representative of a nationwide rather than a statewide class
25
action, that choice ‘is entitled to only minimal consideration.’” Roe v. Intellicorp Records, Inc.,
26
No. 12-cv-02567-YGR, 2012 WL 3727323, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2012) (quoting Lou, 834
27
F.2d at 739); see also In re Funeral Consumers Antitrust Litig., No. 05-01804-WHA, 2005 WL
28
2334362, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2005) (“[I]f there is any indication that plaintiff’s choice of
4
1
forum is the result of forum shopping, plaintiff’s choice will be accorded little deference.”
2
(internal quotation marks omitted)). Although Stone is a California resident, he asserts no
3
connection between his case and the Northern District of California, except that USSA regularly
4
does business here. Compl. ¶ 3. In these circumstances, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s
5
choice of forum carries very little weight.
6
3.
Convenience of Parties
7
USSA argues that transfer to the Northern District of Georgia would be more convenient
8
for the parties and witnesses because the material events and witnesses in this case are centered on
9
USSA’s corporate headquarters in Roswell, Georgia. ECF No. 17 at 1. USSA emphasizes that
corporate decisions regarding USSA’s background check policies were made in Georgia, and
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
argues that nationwide FCRA class actions are “routinely” transferred to the forum in which the
12
defendant has its principal place of business and makes decisions regarding FCRA compliance.
13
Id. at 6 (citing Smith v. HireRight Solutions, Inc., No. 09-cv-6007, 2010 WL 2270541, at *4 (E.D.
14
Pa. June 7, 2010) (“Multiple courts considering § 1404 transfer motions in FCRA cases have
15
noted that the situs of the material events, and thus the appropriate venue, is generally the place
16
where the defendant credit reporting agency conducted its business.”)).
17
Defendant also states that most of the relevant documentary evidence is located in Georgia.
18
However, this factor does not significantly favor transfer. “With technological advances in
19
document storage and retrieval, transporting documents does not generally create a burden.”
20
David v. Alphin, No. 06-cv-04763-WHA, 2007 WL 39400, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2007).
21
Plaintiff, who is a California resident, asks the Court to weigh the parties’ relative means,
22
and notes that his attorneys are admitted to practice in California, not in Georgia. ECF No. 18 at
23
8. The Court will not grant a motion to transfer simply to shift the inconvenience to the plaintiff.
24
Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). However, this
25
is not a situation where an individual plaintiff has filed suit against a large corporation in her home
26
district. Stone filed this case on behalf a nationwide class and claims no connection to the
27
Northern District of California. In addition, the Court gives no weight to the convenience of
28
litigating in California for counsel. See In re Funeral Consumers Antitrust Litig., 2005 WL
5
1
2334362, at *4 (“Although a few decisions have given weight to the location of counsel, most
2
have not saying that it is not to be considered at all or to be given very little weight.”).
3
This factor weighs in favor of transfer.
4
4.
5
With respect to witnesses, USSA has identified three individual witnesses with relevant
Convenience of Witnesses
knowledge, all of whom reside in either Georgia or South Carolina. See ECF No. 21 at 5-7;
7
Longmore Decl. ¶¶ 1-4. It also suggests that employees in its human resources department,
8
located in Roswell, Georgia, and employees of third party consumer reporting agencies, located in
9
New York, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina, have relevant knowledge. See ECF No.
10
21 at 5-6; Longmore Decl. ¶¶ 4, 11. It would be more inconvenient for these witnesses to testify
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
6
in this district than in the Northern District of Georgia.
12
Plaintiff suggests that convenience to witnesses is irrelevant because, in his view, the key
13
issue in the case is a legal question involving the application of the FCRA to USSA’s consent
14
forms, and no witness testimony will be required. ECF No. 18 at 5. Defendant responds that
15
testimony from USSA corporate witnesses will be necessary to identify the specific consent forms
16
used and to explain how the documents were modified over the relevant timeframe, as well as to
17
determine the appropriate level of any statutory penalties awarded. ECF No. 21 at 6. In addition,
18
third party witnesses from credit reporting agencies will be needed to identify members of the
19
putative class because only applicants who were subjected to a background check have a FCRA
20
claim. Id. At this stage, it is impossible to anticipate how much witness testimony will be
21
necessary to resolve this case. Defendant’s prediction that at least some testimony will be required
22
appears plausible based upon the information about USSA’s hiring practices contained in the
23
Longmore Declaration. Therefore the Court will not discount the importance of convenience to
24
the witnesses. See Hendricks v. StarKist Co., No. 13-cv-729-YGR, 2014 WL 1245880, at *3
25
(N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2014) (“The convenience of witnesses is said to be the most important factor
26
in passing on a transfer motion.”).
27
Plaintiff also argues that Defendant has not adequately described the material evidence that
28
the witnesses will present. ECF No. 18 at 5. But the Court concludes that Longmore’s declaration
6
1
adequately identifies her position at USSA, her residence, her anticipated testimony, and the
2
identities of two additional potential witnesses located in or near Georgia.
3
This factor also weighs in favor of transfer.
5.
4
5
Interest of Justice
In evaluating the interest of justice, a court may consider public interest factors such as
6
court congestion, local interest in deciding local controversies, the interest in having the trial of a
7
diversity case in a forum that is at home with the governing law, conflicts of laws, and burdening
8
citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty. Decker Coal Co., 805 F.2d at 843.
In assessing court congestion, “the real issue is not whether a dismissal will reduce a
10
court’s congestion but whether a trial may be speedier in another court because of its less crowded
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
docket.” Gates Learjet Corp. v. Jensen, 743 F.2d 1325, 1337 (9th Cir. 1984). The judicial center
12
profiles show that, as of September 2014, the median times from filing to disposition and from
13
filing to trial in civil cases were comparable in the Northern District of Georgia and the Northern
14
District of California (6.4 and 29.8 months in the Northern District of Georgia, and 7.9 months
15
and 30.9 months in the Northern District of California). A difference of 1.5 months or less is not
16
significant enough to weigh in favor of transfer. In addition, the two district courts are equally
17
equipped to adjudicate federal FCRA claims. Stone has not asserted any state law claims.
18
The Court concludes that neither forum has a greater local interest in resolving the
19
nationwide claims, which presumably affect putative class members in both districts. See Lax v.
20
Toyota Motor Corp., No. 14-cv-01490-WHO, 2014 WL 3973482, at *6 (N. D. Cal. Aug. 14,
21
2014) (“There is no significant local interest in the controversy as between the Central and
22
Northern Districts. That [Toyota Headquarters] is located in the Central District does not mean
23
that the Central District has a significant or unique interest over the Northern District in resolving
24
the nationwide claims at issue in this case.”); Emerson v. Toyota Motor N. Am., No. 14-cv-02842-
25
JST, 2014 WL 6985183, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2014). Because both forums have an interest in
26
resolving the nationwide FCRA claims, the factor concerning burdens on prospective jurors is also
27
neutral.
28
Balancing the relevant factors, the Court determines that Defendant has met its burden to
7
1
show that the Northern District of Georgia is a more appropriate forum for this action. The
2
convenience of the parties and witnesses weighs in favor of transfer. The public interest factors
3
are neutral. Only Plaintiff’s choice of forum weighs against transfer and, as discussed above, this
4
factor merits only minimal consideration in the analysis.
5
IV.
CONCLUSION
6
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to transfer venue is granted. This action
7
shall be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. All
8
further proceedings in this case are stayed until the case is transferred.
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 21, 2015
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?