McCormack v. Medcor, Inc

Filing 18

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 5/14/2014 ORDERING 10 Motion to Change Venue is GRANTED. This case is TRANSFERRED to the Northern District of Illinois. CASE CLOSED.(Waggoner, D) [Transferred from California Eastern on 5/15/2014.]

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

CINDI McCORMACK,

13

2:13-CV-02011 JAM CKD

Plaintiff,

14
15

No.

v.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE

MEDCOR, INC. a corporation;
and DOES 1-100, inclusive,

16
Defendant.
17
18

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Medcor, Inc.’s

19

(“Defendant” or “Medcor”) Motion for Change of Venue (Doc. #10),

20

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

21

(“Plaintiff” or “McCormack”) opposes the motion (Doc. #13).

22

Defendant filed a reply (Doc. #17).

23

Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. 1

24

///

25

///

Plaintiff Cindi McCormack

For the following reasons,

26
27
28

1

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was
scheduled for May 7, 2014.
1

1

I.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

2

Plaintiff is an individual and a resident of Monterey

3

County, California (which is located in the Northern District of

4

California)

5

with its principal place of business in McHenry, Illinois.

6

Notice of Removal ¶ 10.

In 2003, Plaintiff began working for

7

Defendant.

In February 2009, Plaintiff became

8

Director of Operations, Practice Management, for Defendant.

9

Compl. ¶ 8.

10

Compl. ¶ 1.

Compl. ¶ 7.

Defendant is an Illinois corporation,

In December 2011, Plaintiff was “overcome by a nervous

11

breakdown and was prescribed medical leave by her physician.”

12

Compl. ¶ 10.

13

Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).

14

her medical leave on December 19, 2011, and was scheduled to

15

return on January 31, 2012.

16

Plaintiff’s physician did not clear her to return to work and

17

Plaintiff was given a new return date of February 19, 2012.

18

Compl. ¶ 11.

19

She requested and received leave pursuant to the
Compl. ¶ 10.

Compl. ¶ 10.

She began

In mid-January,

On January 23, 2012, Defendant’s Director of Human

20

Resources, Julia Vera informed Plaintiff that, if she was unable

21

to return to work by February 1, 2012, Defendant would experience

22

“substantial economic injuries,” and that Defendant would “begin

23

recruiting [her] replacement.”

24

2012, Plaintiff spoke with Bennett Petersen, Defendant’s Chief

25

Operations Officer.

26

despite the fact that she never resigned, Petersen sent out an

27

email on January 27, 2012, announcing that Plaintiff “ha[d]

28

decided to leave Medcor to pursue other opportunities.”

Compl. ¶ 12.

Compl. ¶ 14.

2

On January 24,

Plaintiff alleges that,

1

Compl. ¶ 15.

2

contact with both Vera and Petersen, but alleges that she did not

3

resign and was terminated, in what Defendant characterized as a

4

“business decision.”

5

On several subsequent occasions, Plaintiff was in

Compl. ¶ 16-20.

On August 20, 2013, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in San

6

Joaquin County Superior Court apparently because her attorneys

7

are located there.

8

case to this Court (Doc. #1).

9

following causes of action: (1) “Retaliation for Taking Protected

On September 26, 2013, Defendant removed the
The Complaint alleges the

10

Medical Leave” in violation of the FMLA; (2) “Wrongful

11

Termination in Violation of Public Policy;” (3) “Breach of

12

Employment Contract;” (4) “Breach of Implied Covenant of Good

13

Faith and Fair Dealing;” and (5) “Failure to Pay Wages upon

14

Termination” in violation of the California Labor Code.

15
16

II.

OPINION

17

A.

18

In pertinent part, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides that, “[f]or

Legal Standard

19

the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of

20

justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any

21

other district or division where it might have been brought[.]”

22

A district court’s decision to transfer venue is reviewed for

23

abuse of discretion.

24

Cir. 1987).

25

Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 734 (9th

Analysis under § 1404(a) is two-fold.

First, the moving

26

party must establish that the matter “might have been brought” in

27

the district to which transfer is requested.

28

Ins. Co. in City of New York, 674 F.Supp.2d 1141, 1145 (C.D. Cal.
3

Metz v. U.S. Life

1

2009).

2

(1) convenience of the parties; (2) convenience of witnesses; and

3

(3) the interests of justice.

4

analyzing the third factor, the “interests of justice,” a number

5

of considerations are relevant, including, but not limited to:

6

(a) the plaintiff’s choice of forum; (b) which forum is more

7

familiar with the governing law; and (c) the relative court

8

congestion in each forum.

9
10

Second, courts must consider the following three factors:

B.

Metz, 674 F.Supp.2d at 1145.

In

Metz, 674 F.Supp.2d at 1145.

The “District of Illinois”

Defendant requests transfer to the “District of Illinois.”

11

Mot. at 1.

12

“District of Illinois.”

13

http://www.uscourts.gov/ court locator.aspx).

14

Illinois is divided into three federal districts: the Northern

15

District of Illinois, the Central District of Illinois, and the

16

Southern District of Illinois.

17

place of business is in McHenry, Illinois, which is located in

18

the Northern District of Illinois.

19

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is construed as requesting

20

transfer to the Northern District of Illinois.

Unbeknownst to Defendant’s counsel, there is no
See U.S. Court Locator, (available at

Id.

The state of

Defendant Medcor’s principal

Notice of Removal ¶ 10.

21

C.

22

Defendant must first establish that the matter “might have

Discussion

23

been brought” in the Northern District of Illinois.

24

§ 1404(a).

25

in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents

26

of the State in which the district is located[.]”

27

§ 1391(b)(1).

28

resides in Illinois.

28 U.S.C.

A civil action may be brought in “a judicial district

28 U.S.C.

The sole Defendant in this case, Medcor, Inc.,
Notice of Removal ¶ 10.
4

Accordingly, the

1

matter might have been brought in the Northern District of

2

Illinois, and the first prong of § 1404(a) is satisfied.

3
4

1.

Convenience to the Parties

In exercising its discretion on a motion for change of

5

venue, the Court must consider the relative convenience of the

6

parties.

7

original forum of the Eastern District of California is far more

8

convenient for Plaintiff, who is a resident of Monterey County,

9

California.

Metz, 674 F.Supp.2d at 1145.

Compl. ¶ 1.

In this case, the

Conversely, the Northern District of

10

Illinois is far more convenient for Defendant, whose principal

11

place of business is in Illinois.

12

this factor does not weigh strongly in favor of either side.

13

However, the Court may take into account the relative means of

14

each party, and the inconvenience to a corporation is somewhat

15

less significant than the inconvenience to an individual.

16

Miracle v. N.Y.P. Holdings, Inc., 87 F.Supp.2d 1060, 1073 (D.

17

Haw. 2000).

18

retaining the original forum.

19
20

Notice of Removal ¶ 10.

Thus,

Accordingly, this factor weighs slightly in favor of

2.

Convenience to Witnesses

“The relative convenience to the witnesses is often

21

recognized as the most important factor to be considered in

22

ruling on a motion under § 1404(a).”

23

F.Supp.2d 1152, 1160 (S.D. Cal. 2005).

24

central dispute is over whether the majority of witnesses live in

25

Illinois or California.

26

exception of Plaintiff, all witnesses are based in Illinois.”

27

Mot. at 1.

28

witnesses in this case – McCormack included – reside on the west

Saleh v. Titan Corp., 361
Fittingly, the parties’

Defendant maintains that “[w]ith the

Plaintiff responds that “[t]he great majority of

5

1
2

coast.”

Opp. at 1.

The case at bar is an employment discrimination case.

Each

3

cause of action in the Complaint alleges unlawful action by

4

Defendant Medcor.

5

that Defendant “discriminated and retaliated” against Plaintiff

6

in violation of the FMLA.

7

in this case will be whether Plaintiff was improperly terminated

8

by Defendant because she took leave under the FMLA.

9

of the witnesses who can address that issue are Medcor employees

For example, the first cause of action alleges

Compl. ¶¶ 25-30.

The central dispute

Nearly all

10

who were involved in the termination of Plaintiff.

11

the Petersen Declaration, these witnesses reside or work in

12

Illinois.

13

Accordingly, the Northern District of Illinois would be a more

14

convenient forum for the witnesses in this case, and this factor

15

strongly favors granting Defendant’s motion to change venue.

16

As noted in

Petersen Declaration (Doc. #11) ¶¶ 24-40.

Plaintiff’s argument that “the great majority of witnesses”

17

do not reside in Illinois is unavailing.

18

supplies a declaration listing “the names of no fewer than

19

fifteen other witnesses – former co-workers and family members –

20

all of whom can testify to McCormack’s enormous workload and how

21

it contributed to her mental breakdown.”

22

McCormack Declaration ¶¶ 5-19).

23

primary physician and psychotherapist – witnesses to her nervous

24

breakdown and need for medical leave – both reside in Monterey

25

County.”

26

(or any) of these witnesses would be called at trial.

27

“McCormack’s enormous workload” and its role in her “mental

28

breakdown” are not at issue in this employment discrimination

Opp. at 5.

Opp. at 1.

Plaintiff

Opp. at 5-6 (citing

Plaintiff also notes that “[h]er

However, Plaintiff does not explain why all

6

1

case.

2

problem and her resulting need for time off are undisputed.”

3

Reply at 5.

4

the testimony of these witnesses would be largely cumulative.

5

Each of Plaintiff’s proposed witnesses would provide the same

6

testimony: that Plaintiff had a “mental breakdown” while working

7

for Defendant and needed medical leave.

8

¶¶ 3-19.

9

Plaintiff was improperly terminated for taking leave under the

Indeed, Defendant acknowledges that Plaintiff’s “health

Furthermore, even if these facts were in dispute,

McCormack Declaration

As noted above, the central dispute is whether

10

FMLA, and the vast majority of witnesses who can address that

11

dispute are Medcor employees who work and reside in Illinois.

12
13

3.

Interests of Justice

A number of considerations can play a role in the Court’s

14

“interests of justice” analysis.

15

in City of New York, 674 F. Supp. 2d 1141, 1145-46 (C.D. Cal.

16

2009) (comprehensively listing all of the factors which might be

17

relevant to this analysis).

18

considerations relevant in the current case are Plaintiff’s

19

choice of forum, which forum is more familiar with the governing

20

law, and the relative court congestion in each forum.

21

See Metz v. U.S. Life Ins. Co.

However, the only three

As is always the case, Plaintiff’s choice of forum is

22

entitled to consideration.

23

However, the Ninth Circuit has instructed that, “[i]f the

24

operative facts have not occurred within the forum of original

25

selection . . . the plaintiff’s choice is entitled to only

26

minimal consideration.”

27

F.2d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 1968).

28

not occur in California.

Metz, 674 F.Supp.2d at 1145.

Pac. Car & Foundry Co. v. Pence, 403
Here, the “operative facts” did

Rather, the decision to terminate
7

1

Plaintiff (and any accompanying discussions or meetings) occurred

2

at Defendant’s office in Illinois.

3

her “termination – giving rise to every cause of action in this

4

case – occurred in Monterey County” is not supported by the

5

record.

6

when she was terminated, the decision to terminate her was made

7

by individuals in Illinois. In addition, Plaintiff’s attorneys

8

chose the original forum, in part, because it was convenient to

9

them, not necessarily to their client. Plaintiff resides in the

Opp. at 4.

Plaintiff’s contention that

Although Plaintiff resided in California

10

Northern District of California. The Eastern District of

11

California has no connection to this case other than Plaintiff’s

12

attorneys are located here.

13

forum is entitled to only minimal consideration.

14

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s choice of

Consideration of which forum “is most familiar with the

15

governing law” is also appropriate.

16

As noted by Plaintiff, at least two causes of action in the

17

Complaint will require the presiding court to interpret and apply

18

California state law.

19

the Complaint is based on a federal statute, the FMLA.

20

¶ 25-30.

21

Illinois is equally familiar with the FMLA as this Court.

22

Moreover, courts are routinely required to interpret the laws of

23

other states, and this is well within the capability of a federal

24

district court in the Northern District of Illinois.

25

Accordingly, the presence of California state law claims weighs

26

only slightly in favor of retaining the original forum.

27
28

Opp. at 6.

Metz, 674 F.Supp.2d at 1145.

However, a central element of
Compl.

A federal district court in the Northern District of

Finally, the Court considers the “relative court congestion
in the two forums.”

Metz, 674 F.Supp.2d at 1145.
8

The Eastern

1

District of California is significantly more congested than the

2

Northern District of Illinois.

3

Weighted and Unweighted Filings per Authorized Judgeship, Table

4

X-1A, at 3, 4 (available at http://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics/

5

JudicialBusiness/2013/us-district-courts.aspx).

6

dispositive, this consideration weighs in favor of granting

7

Defendant’s motion to transfer.

8
9

See U.S. District Courts –

Although not

For the reasons discussed above, the “interests of justice”
factor does not weigh heavily in favor of either party.

The

10

minimal consideration given to Plaintiff’s choice in forum and

11

this Court’s familiarity with California state law is offset by

12

the relative court congestion in the Eastern District of

13

California.

14
15

4.

Final Analysis

The first and third factors of “convenience to the parties”

16

and “interests of justice” do not weigh strongly in favor of

17

either party.

18

“convenience to witnesses” weighs strongly in favor of granting

19

Defendant’s motion to transfer.

20

Accordingly, transfer to the Northern District of Illinois is

21

appropriate.

Conversely, the “most important factor” of

Metz, 674 F.Supp.2d at 1145.

22
23
24
25
26
27

III.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS
Defendant’s Motion for Change of Venue:
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 14, 2014

28
9