Slusher v. Big Lots Stores, Inc. ( 2019 )

1 Shaun Setareh (SBN 204514) shaun@setarehlaw.com 2 Thomas Segal (SBN 222791) thomas@setarehlaw.com 3 SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 4 Beverly Hills, California 90212 Telephone (310) 888-7771 5 Facsimile (310) 888-0109 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff ROXANNE SLUSHER 7 Yvette Davis (SBN 165777) 8 ydavis@hbblaw.com HAIGHT BROWN & BONESTEEL LLP 9 2050 Main Street, Suite 600 Irvine, California 92614 10 Telephone: 714.426.4600 Facsimile: 714.754.0826 11 Mark A. Knueve (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 12 maknueve@vorys.com Daniel J. Clark (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 13 djclark@vorys.com George L. Stevens (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 14 glstevens@vorys.com VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR & PEASE LLP 15 52 East Gay Street, P.O. Box 1008 Columbus, Ohio 43216-1008 16 Phone: 614.464.6436 Fax: 614.464.8054 17 Attorneys for Defendants BIG LOTS STORES, INC. 18 and BIG LOTS F&S, INC. 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 20 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 21 22 ROXANNE SLUSHER, on behalf of herself, Case No. 17-cv-06030-RS all others similarly situated, and the general 23 public, JOINT STIPULATION REQUESTING TRANSFER PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 24 Plaintiff, § 1404(a); ORDER 25 vs. [Filed concurrently with [Proposed] Order] 26 cB oI rG po L raO tiT oS n ;S BT IO GR LE OS T, I SN FC &., S a ,n I NO Chi .o , an Ohio Judge: Hon. Richard Seeborg corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, 27 inclusive, Action Filed: September 21, 2017 1 This Stipulation is made by and between Plaintiff ROXANNE SLUSHER (‘Plaintiff’) and 2|| Defendants BIG LOTS STORES, INC. and BIG LOTS F&S, INC. (“Defendants’’) (collectively, 3}| the “Parties”). The Parties, through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate to and 4|| request the Court to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Central District of 5 || California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In support, the Parties respectfully show the Court the 6 || following: 7 The purpose of the requested transfer is to facilitate a consolidated settlement of this case 8 || with another case pending against Defendants in the Central District of California: Viola Hubbs v. 9|| Big Lots Stores, Inc., et al, Case No. 2:15-cv-01601JAK (ASx) (the “Hubbs case’’). The cases 10 include allegations (which Defendants deny) that Defendants violated California wage-hour laws 11 || by failing to (1) pay overtime; (2) pay minimum wages; (3) provide meal periods and/or meal 12 || period premium payments; (4) provide rest periods and/or rest period premium payments; 13 || G) provide compliant wage statements; (6) pay all wages upon termination of employment to OD 14 || former employees; (7) timely pay wages during employment; (8) properly compensate for split O 15 || shifts; and (9) provide suitable seating to employees. Plaintiffs also assert claims under the Private 16 || Attorneys General Act, California Labor Code sections 2698, et seq. “‘PAGA”) and California 17 || Business & Professions Code sections 17200, et seq., as well as other damages. 18 Counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants in this case and in the Hubbs case have executed a 19 || Settlement Agreement that, upon its final approval and becoming effective on the terms and 20 || conditions stated therein, will fully and finally resolve the claims in all of these cases against 2.1 || Defendants. In the Settlement Agreement, the Parties agreed that preliminary and final approval 22 || will be sought in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, where the 23 || Hubbs case was pending, which litigation was furthest advanced at the time that the Parties 24 || executed the Settlement Agreement. A motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement 25 || Agreement will be filed in the Central District of California where this case will be consolidated 26 || with the Hubbs case for settlement purposes before the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt. a7 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest 28 || of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it □ Case No. 3:17-cv-06030-RS 1|| might have been brought.” Under either diversity jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)) or federal 2|| question jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)), an action may be brought “‘in (1) a judicial district 3 || where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, [or] (2) a judicial district in 4 || which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred... □□ A 5|| corporate defendant is “deemed to reside in any judicial district in which it is subject to personal 6 || jurisdiction at the time the action [was] commenced.” /d. at (c). This action could have been 7 || brought in the District for Central District of California, where Defendants are subject to personal 8|| jurisdiction. Although Plaintiffs initially chose to bring this action in this District, for purposes of settlement only, transferring it to the Central District of California to facilitate settlement will 10 || serve the interests of justice. 1] “(Since [Section] 1404(a) looks to sound judicial administration, the court may order a ]2 || transfer whenever the circumstances justify the requirement... .” Blumenthal v. Mgmt. Assistance, 13 || Inc., 480 F. Supp. 470, 471 (N.D. ILL. 1979). In addressing a motion to transfer venue under OD 14 Section 1404(a), three elements must be established: “(1) that venue is proper in the transferor 15 || district; (2) that the transferee district is one where the action might have been brought; and 16 || G) that the transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and will promote the 17 ||interest of justice.” Vu v. Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc., 602 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1155-56 (N.D. Cal. 18 |] 2009) (quoting Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 820 F. Supp. 503, 506 19 || (C.D. Cal. 1992)). Once venue is determined to be proper in both districts, courts use the 20 || following factors to evaluate whether a transfer of venue would be more convenient to the parties 2.1 || and the witnesses and would promote the interests of justice: (1) plaintiffs’ choice of forum, 22 convenience of the parties, (3) convenience of the witnesses, (4) ease of access to the evidence, 23 || (S) familiarity of each forum with the applicable law, (6) feasibility of consolidation with other 24 || claims, (7) any local interest in the controversy, and (8) the relative court congestion and time of 25 || trial in each forum. Vu, 602 F. Supp. 2d at 1156. 26 Here, the Parties are requesting the change of venue, for their convenience, to the Central 27 || District of California to facilitate a settlement of multiple cases in a single proceeding, which 28 || would constitute the overriding application of the “interests of justice” consideration. See Mercury > Case No. 3:17-cv-06030-RS ] || Serv., Inc. v. Allied Bank of Texas, 117 F.R.D. 147, 154-55 (C.D. Cal. 1987), aff'd, 907 F.2d 154 2, || Oth Cir. 1990) (recognizing that the ultimate goal of a court in analyzing a motion to transfer 3 || venue is to serve both the convenience of the parties and witnesses, as well as the interests of 4 || justice); see also United States ex rel. Ondis v. City Woonsocket, 480 F. Supp. 2d 434, 436 (D. 5 || Mass. 2007) (“The fundamental concern manifest in § 1404(a) is that litigation be conducted in the 6 || federal court which will best serve the ‘interest of justice.’’’). Additionally, inasmuch as the 7 || requested transfer is for purposes of facilitating settlement, ease of access to proof and the 8 || convenience of the witnesses are irrelevant. Moreover, both forums are familiar with the 9 || applicable law, so this factor similarly does not weigh against transfer. 10 Accordingly, the Parties hereby stipulate to and respectfully request that this Court transfer 11 || this case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. A Proposed 12 || Order is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 13 IT IS SO STIPULATED. al 14 15 16 || DATED: December 12, 2019 SETAREH LAW GROUP 17 18 /s Thomas Se gal (with permission) 19 SHAUN SETAREH THOMAS SEGAL 20 Attorneys for Plaintiff 21 ROXANNE SLUSHER 22 93 || DATED: December 12, 2019 VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR & PEASE LLP 24 25 /s George L. Stevens 26 MARK A. KNUEVE DANIEL J. CLARK GEORGE L. STEVENS 28 Attorneys for Defendants BIG LOTS STORES, INC., and BIG LOTS F&S, INC. 2 Case No. 3:17-cv-06030-RS ] FILER’?S ATTESTATION 2 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the filer of this document attests that 3 ||concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from the other 4 ||signatory above. || DATED: December 12, 2019 /s/ George L. Stevens 7 GEORGE L. STEVENS 9 10 11 12 2B OD 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Case No. 3:17-cv-06030-RS EXHIBIT A 1 ORDER 2 ||/TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 3 Having considered the Stipulation between counsel for Plaintiff ROXANNE 4 ||SLUSHER and Defendants BIG LOTS STORES, INC. and BIG LOTS F&S, INC, 5 ||and good cause appearing therefore, the Parties’ Stipulation is hereby GRANTED / 6 || DENIED. This Court hereby ORDERS: 7 1. That this matter is TRANSFERRED to the United States District 8 Court for the Central District of California. 9 2. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to the Clerk for 10 the Central District of California and to the chambers of the judge 11 (Judge John A. Kronstadt) there assigned to the Hubbs case. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. OD 14 || DATED: December 13, 2019 Hel bokong □□ Seek 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 « Case No. 3:17-cv-06030-R§