(PS)Jones v. BergElectric Inc. ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MELVIN KEITH JONES, Case No. 20-cv-08467-HSG 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 26 10 BERGELECTRIC INC., et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Presently before the Court is Defendant Bergelectric Corp.’s motion to change venue to the 14 Eastern District of California. Dkt. Nos. 26 (“Mot.”). Plaintiff Melvin Jones does not oppose the 15 transfer. Dkt. No. 27. The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without oral 16 argument and the matter is deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). For the following reasons, 17 the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion and TRANSFERS this action to the Eastern District of 18 California. 19 I. LEGAL STANDARD 20 “For the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court 21 may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought . . . 22 .” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The transfer statute exists “to prevent the waste ‘of time, energy and 23 money’ and ‘to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and 24 expense.’” Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964) (citation omitted). The moving party 25 bears the burden of showing that the transferee district is a “more appropriate forum.” See Jones 26 v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2000). And the district court has broad 27 discretion in deciding whether or not to transfer an action. See Ventress v. Japan Airlines, 486 1 abuse of discretion. Weighing of the factors for and against transfer involves subtle considerations 2 and is best left to the discretion of the trial judge.”) (citations and quotations omitted). 3 II. DISCUSSION 4 In its unopposed motion, Defendant argues that the case should have been brought in the 5 Eastern District of California based on the venue provisions of 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(3). 6 That section provides that a Title VII action “may be brought in any judicial district in the State in 7 which the unlawful employment practice is alleged to have been committed, in the judicial district 8 in which the employment records relevant to such practice are maintained and administered, or in 9 the judicial district in which the aggrieved person would have worked but for the alleged unlawful 10 employment practice . . .” 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(3). Because Plaintiff alleges that the “lawsuit 11 arose in Amador County,” Defendant contends that the Eastern District is where the alleged 12 unlawful employment practices occurred. Mot. at 5. Additionally, Defendant indicates that the 13 employment records relevant to the alleged unlawful practices are maintained and administered in 14 Sacramento County.1 Id. at 6. 15 Defendant also contends that transfer is warranted based on the general federal transfer 16 statute. The Court agrees. Under Title VII’s venue provision, the case originally could have been 17 filed in the Eastern District, where Plaintiff alleges the unlawful employment practice occurred 18 and where the relevant employment records are maintained and administered. And with respect to 19 whether the considerations of convenience and fairness favor transfer, Defendant represents that 20 the convenience of all parties and non-party witnesses favors transferring this action because the 21 parties and witnesses are located in the Eastern District. Id. at 7–8. Specifically, Defendant notes 22 that Plaintiff appears to have at all times resided in San Joaquin County, the location of the 23 relevant Bergelectric office is in Sacramento County, and the Bergelectric employee witnesses 24 “are located in, or around, Sacramento County.” Plaintiff does not oppose the motion, and the 25 Court finds transfer is warranted. 26 27 1 Defendant notes that it is “indeterminate” where Plaintiff would have worked but for the alleged Il CONCLUSION The Court GRANTS the unopposed motion to change venue. Dkt. No. 26. The Clerk of 2 Court shall TRANSFER this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 3 California, and close the file. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: 4/2/2021 Alepurl 5 Mp. 8 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 9 United States District Judge 10 ll a 12 14 © 15 16 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28