Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-07109/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-07109-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 15:1938 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID JIMENEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

HAXTON MASONRY, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-07109-SVK 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO TRANSFER AND 

REGARDING CASE SCHEDULE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 26, 31, 32

Plaintiff David Jimenez seeks to bring a class action against Defendant Haxton Masonry, 

Inc. (“Haxton”) under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code and the California 

Business and Professions Code. ECF 24. Plaintiff specifically seeks recovery for failure to pay 

wages, overtime and travel expenses in connection with Plaintiff’s and his coworkers’ travel to 

worksites in California. Id. 

Before the Court is Defendant Haxton’s motion to transfer this case to the District Court of 

Arizona under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). ECF 26. Plaintiff opposes Haxton’s motion. ECF 31. Based 

on the May 7, 2019 hearing, the Parties’ submissions and the relevant law, the Court finds that 

Haxton fails to meet its burden of demonstrating that transfer is warranted. Accordingly, the 

Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to transfer. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (“Amended Complaint”) alleges that he worked for 

Haxton as an hourly employee from 2013 to 2017. ECF 24 at ¶ 14. Haxton is a commercial 

masonry company incorporated in Arizona, and its only business office is in Yuma, Arizona. 

ECF 26-1 at ¶ 3. Plaintiff alleges that as a concrete finisher, “Haxton required him to regularly 

travel to California to complete masonry projects.” ECF 24 at ¶ 14. He further alleges that his 

Case 5:18-cv-07109-SVK Document 34 Filed 05/10/19 Page 1 of 9
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

wage sheets show that he performed approximately 70% of his work for Haxton in California. Id.

at ¶ 15. Plaintiff resides in Yuma, Arizona, so to complete this work, Plaintiff alleges that Haxton 

required him and his fellow employees to travel to and stay overnight at jobsites in California. Id. 

at ¶ 16. The Amended Complaint alleges that on these trips, “Plaintiff and his Haxton coworkers 

had to pay for their own travel expenses, including rental cars, gas, food, and lodging.” Id. at ¶ 18. 

Plaintiff contends that he and the other potential class members have been deprived of wages, 

overtime and expenses for this travel time. Id. at ¶¶ 42–44, 56–60.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Haxton’s motion to transfer requests that the Court dismiss or transfer venue of this lawsuit 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). ECF 26 at 2–3. 

However, Haxton’s reply and representations at oral argument clarify that Haxton only moves to 

transfer this action for convenience under § 1404(a). ECF 32 at 2. Section 1404(a) provides that 

if venue is proper, “a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division 

where it might have been brought” “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses” and “in the 

interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The section aims “to prevent the waste ‘of time, energy 

and money’ and ‘to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience 

and expense.’” Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964) (citation omitted). It also gives 

“discretion [to] the district court to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an ‘individualized, 

case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.’” Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 

U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (quoting Van Dusen, 376 U.S. at 622). 

In making this determination, the Court considers the three factors identified by § 1404(a): 

(1) the convenience of the parties, (2) the convenience of witnesses and (3) the interest of justice. 

28 U.S.C. 1404(a); Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 

1979). The Court may also consider and weigh: 

(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 

Case 5:18-cv-07109-SVK Document 34 Filed 05/10/19 Page 2 of 9
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(8) the ease of access to sources of proof. 

Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498–99 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court need not 

consider all these factors, and it “has the broad discretion to address some of these or other factors 

based on the particular facts of each case.” Johansson v. Cent. Garden & Pet Co., No. C 10-

03771 MEJ, 2010 WL 4977725, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2010) (citation omitted). Lastly, the 

moving party has the burden of showing that the proposed transferee district is the more 

appropriate venue. Jones, 211 F.3d at 499.

III. ANALYSIS 

Haxton contends that the District of Arizona provides a more convenient forum for the 

Parties and potential witnesses, all of whom reside in Arizona. ECF 26 at 1, 5–6. Plaintiff 

opposes Haxton’s motion and argues that the Court should defer to Plaintiff’s choice of forum. 

ECF 31. Here, the most relevant factors to Haxton’s motion to transfer are (1) Plaintiff’s choice of

forum, (2) convenience of the parties, (3) convenience of witnesses, (4) familiarity with governing 

law and (5) the public interest factors. The Court addresses each below. 

1. Venue is Proper in the District of Arizona 

Under § 1404, the proposed transferee venue must be a “district or division where [the 

action] might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Here, Haxton is based in Yuma, Arizona, 

and Plaintiff does not challenge Haxton’s argument that Plaintiff could have brought this case in 

the District of Arizona. See ECF 31; ECF 26 at 4–5. Accordingly, the Court proceeds in its 

analysis to consider whether the relevant factors favor or disfavor transfer. 

2. Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum 

Generally, “[t]he defendant must make a strong showing of inconvenience to warrant 

upsetting the plaintiff’s choice of forum.” Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 

F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). However, certain factors, such as the plaintiff residing outside of 

the district or the plaintiff bringing a class action, can reduce the level of deference given to the 

plaintiff’s choice of forum. Lucas v. Daiichi Sankyo Co., No. C 11-0772 CW, 2011 WL 2020443, 

at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 24, 2011); Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987). The Court 

ultimately determines the proper weight to give Plaintiff’s choice of forum by considering “the 

Case 5:18-cv-07109-SVK Document 34 Filed 05/10/19 Page 3 of 9
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

extent of both [Plaintiff’s] and [Defendant’s] contacts with the forum, including those relating to 

[Plaintiff’s] cause of action.” Id. (citation omitted). 

Although Haxton argues that the Court should give little weight Plaintiff’s choice of forum 

because of Plaintiff’s Arizona residency and desire to represent a class of workers, the Court finds 

that Plaintiff’s and Haxton’s connections to this District, which give rise to the Amended 

Complaint, warrant deference to Plaintiff’s choice of forum. The core allegations in Plaintiff’s 

Amended Complaint revolve around Haxton’s alleged failure to properly compensate its 

employees for traveling to work on California job sites. ECF 24 at ¶¶ 42–44, 56–60. Indeed, the 

Amended Complaint asserts that venue is proper in this District because Plaintiff’s claims “arose 

during work and/or travel to one or more job sites in this judicial district, including Monterey 

Presidio in Monterey County.” Id. at ¶ 4. Defendant presents no evidence refuting this allegation 

and does not contend that venue is not proper in this District. ECF 32 at 2. 

Furthermore, Haxton’s answer “admits that certain Haxton employees would travel from 

homes in California or in Arizona in order to work on jobsites in California” and that “Plaintiff 

worked at over a dozen worksites in California.” ECF 27 at ¶¶ 16, 20. Haxton’s employee 

handbook with its discussion of California labor law and references to California employees 

provides additional evidence of the regularity of Haxton’s work in California. ECF 31-1, Ex. D

(“Pl.’s RJN). Haxton’s website advertises its ability to work on projects in California, which 

further confirms its commitment to performing masonry work in California. Id., Ex. C. Together, 

these facts and allegations demonstrate the connection between Plaintiff’s claims, Haxton,

California in general and this District in particular. This connection supports deferring to 

Plaintiff’s choice of forum, notwithstanding his Arizona residency. See Lou, 834 F.2d at 739. 

Given the particular circumstances of this action, the fact that Plaintiff seeks to bring a 

class action does not undermine the deference this Court gives to his choice of forum. See Reyes 

v. Bakery & Confectionery Union & Indus. Int’l Pension Fund, No. 14-CV-05596-JST, 2015 WL 

1738269, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2015). Here, Plaintiff’s claims relate to work conducted by 

Plaintiff and other potential class members in this District and in California. Haxton’s answer also 

admits that some of its employees “would travel from homes in California . . . to work on jobsites 

Case 5:18-cv-07109-SVK Document 34 Filed 05/10/19 Page 4 of 9
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

in California.” ECF 27 at ¶ 16. The potential classes thus may contain California as well as 

Arizona residents. See ECF 24 at ¶¶ 21, 25 (identifying potential class members as “[a]ll persons 

who are or have been employed by Haxton as hourly employees who traveled to jobsites in 

California”).1 The Court has not certified either potential class and cannot conclude for certain 

how many class members reside in Arizona versus California. Additionally, the level of 

inconvenience for these potential class members is unclear at this stage because they will “never 

need to appear in this action unless they wished to intervene.” Van Slyke v. Capital One Bank, 

503 F. Supp. 2d 1353, 1363 (N.D. Cal. 2007). In contrast, Plaintiff “will ‘still bear a great deal of 

responsibility’” if he is appointed as a class representative. Id. (quoting David v. Alphin, No. C06-

041763 WHA, 2007 WL 39400, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2007)). The Court therefore concludes 

that in this instance, Plaintiff’s proposed class action does not warrant discounting his choice of 

forum. 

The deference given to the plaintiff’s choice of forum directly impacts the defendant’s 

burden on a § 1404 motion to transfer. Chesapeake Climate Action Network v. Exp.-Imp. Bank of 

the United States, No. C 13-03532 WHA, 2013 WL 6057824, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2013) 

(“As deference to a plaintiff’s choice of forum decreases, a defendant’s burden to upset the 

plaintiff's choice of forum also decreases.”) (citation omitted). Here, the Court concludes that 

Plaintiff’s choice of forum deserves deference, and as a result, the standard rule, which requires a 

defendant to “make a strong showing of inconvenience to warrant upsetting the plaintiff’s choice 

of forum” applies. Decker Coal, 805 F.2d at 843. 

3. Convenience of the Parties and Access to Evidence 

The Court also considers the convenience of the parties, but this factor does not weigh in 

favor of transferring the action, when “[t]he transfer would merely shift rather than eliminate the 

inconvenience.” Decker Coal, 805 F.2d at 843. 

////

 

1

To support its argument that all potential class members reside in Arizona, Haxton relies on a 

declaration from one its employees, which states that Plaintiff’s work crews all resided in Arizona. 

ECF 26-1 at ¶ 4. However, the Amended Complaint’s two proposed classes are not limited to 

workers who worked on Plaintiff’s crews. ECF 24 at ¶¶ 21, 25. 

Case 5:18-cv-07109-SVK Document 34 Filed 05/10/19 Page 5 of 9
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Haxton’s presence in California for its regular work on commercial masonry projects in the 

state mitigates the inconvenience of resulting from its location in Yuma, Arizona. Haxton’s 

website advertises itself as both an Arizona and California contractor and notes its ability to 

complete commercial masonry projects in both states. ECF 31-1, Ex. C. Further, Haxton’s 

registration with the California Secretary of State and its California contractor’s license provide 

additional evidence of its work in California. Id., Exs. A, B. This regular presence in California 

mitigates at least some of the inconvenience of litigating outside Haxton’s home state. The Court 

thus gives less weight to the potential inconvenience for Haxton. 

Perhaps not surprisingly, Haxton primarily focuses on the inconvenience to potential future 

class members whom Haxton contends all reside in Arizona. ECF 26 at 5–6. While Arizona does 

appear to be the more convenient forum for potential class members residing in Arizona, as 

discussed in Section III(2), supra, the uncertainty regarding the residency of potential class 

members and the extent of their involvement in the litigation, limits the weight given to this factor. 

See Flint v. UGS Corp., No. C07-04640 MJJ, 2007 WL 4365481, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2007)

(“[T]he Court declines to find the speculative location of potential class members to weigh 

towards transfer.”). 

Lastly, Haxton argues that access to evidence such as company records weighs in favor of 

Arizona. ECF 26 at 7. The Court gives this argument little weight, given that “[w]ith 

technological advances in document storage and retrieval, transporting documents does not 

generally create a burden.” David, 2007 WL 39400, at *3 (citation omitted). Further, Haxton’s 

examples of employee files, payroll statements and other company records (ECF 32 at 7) may be 

produced electronically or shipped with relative ease. Accordingly, like the other factors 

regarding the convenience of the parties, access to evidence supports Arizona, but mitigating 

factors lead the Court to give less weight to the convenience of the parties. 

4. Convenience of Witnesses 

In some situations, courts have considered “[t]he convenience of witnesses . . . the most 

important factor in deciding whether to transfer an action.” Getz v. Boeing Co., 547 F. Supp. 2d 

1080, 1083 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (citing Bunker v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 2006 WL 193856, *2 

Case 5:18-cv-07109-SVK Document 34 Filed 05/10/19 Page 6 of 9
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(N.D. Cal. 2006)). However, courts in this District discount inconvenience to a party’s employees 

whom that party can compel to testify. STX, Inc. v. Trik Stik, Inc., 708 F. Supp. 1551, 1556 (N.D. 

Cal. 1988) (citation omitted); Am. Civil Liberties Union of N. California v. Burwell, No. 16-CV03539-LB, 2017 WL 1540606, at *5 (N.D. Cal. 2017). 

Haxton contends that proceeding in this District inconveniences Haxton’s witnesses, all of 

whom reside in Arizona. ECF 26 at 6. Haxton’s motion and supporting declaration identify four 

potential witnesses: (1) Cassandra Reed, a senior project administrator, payroll administrator and 

contracts administrator, (2) Steve Haxton, the company president, (3) Gabriel Rosales, Plaintiff’s 

immediate supervisor and (4) Cosme Garcia, another of Plaintiff’s immediate supervisors. 

ECF 26-1 at ¶¶ 1, 4. Because all of these witnesses are employed by Haxton, the Court discounts 

the weight given to their inconvenience. Furthermore, as discussed above, Haxton’s regular 

business in California also mitigates the inconvenience of litigating in this District. Accordingly, 

while the Arizona does provide the more convenient forum for Haxton’s witnesses, the Court 

gives this factor less weight given their employment with Haxton and Haxton’s business in 

California. 

5. Familiarity with Governing Law 

“An important factor in determining whether transfer of venue is warranted is the interest 

of having the trial in a forum that is familiar with the law.” Jarvis v. Marietta Corp., No. C 98-

4951 MJJ, 1999 WL 638231, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 1999) (citing Decker Coal, 805 F.2d at 

843). Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint brings six California state law claims. ECF 24 at 

¶¶ 53–95. Haxton concedes that “the Northern District court is likely more familiar with 

California law.” ECF 32 at 6. This District’s familiarity with California law promotes judicial 

efficiency, and both this Court and the District Court of Arizona can oversee any injunctive relief 

awarded. The Court therefore finds that this factor weighs significantly in favor of the action 

remaining in this District.

////

////

////

Case 5:18-cv-07109-SVK Document 34 Filed 05/10/19 Page 7 of 9
8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

6. Public Interest Factors

When considering a motion to transfer, a court “must also consider public-interest factors 

such as relative degrees of court congestion, local interest in deciding local controversies, potential 

conflicts of laws, and other interests of justice.” Chesapeake Climate Action Network, 2013 WL 

6057824, at *3 (citing Decker Coal, 805 F.2d at 843). Benefits in favor of both forums exist 

under each of these factors, so the public interest factors neither weigh for or against transfer. 

First, this action is before a magistrate judge, which mitigates the benefits of the District of 

Arizona’s slightly reduced case load. ECF 13; ECF 20. Second, both forums have a significant 

degree of local interest in the matter. This District has an interest in enforcing California labor 

laws for work conducted in the District. Arizona has an interest in adjudicating a dispute between 

an Arizona employee and his Arizona former-employer. The Court thus finds that relevant public 

interest factors are neutral. 

7. Summary of Factors

Plaintiff’s choice of forum and the Court’s familiarity with the governing law weigh in 

favor of denying Haxton’s motion to transfer. While the convenience of the parties and witnesses 

may weigh in favor of transfer, mitigating factors such as Haxton’s regular and substantial

presence in California for business give these considerations less weight. Thus, on balance the 

factors weigh against transferring this case to Arizona. Accordingly, the Court finds that Haxton

has failed to meet its burden in demonstrating the necessary level of inconvenience to disturb 

Plaintiff’s choice of forum. See Decker Coal, 805 F.2d at 843. The Court DENIES Haxton’s 

motion to transfer. 

IV. SCHEDULING 

At the May 7, 2019 hearing, Haxton’s counsel informed the Court that he plans to file a 

motion to withdraw as counsel shortly and requested that the Court reserve June 25, 2019, for a 

potential hearing on that motion. The Court directs counsel to Civil Local Rule 11-5 and notes 

that a hearing on counsel’s request to withdraw may not be necessary. The Court will determine 

whether or not to hold a hearing after receiving Haxton’s counsel’s request to withdraw as 

counsel, which Haxton’s counsel shall file by May 30, 2019.

Case 5:18-cv-07109-SVK Document 34 Filed 05/10/19 Page 8 of 9
9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

In light of Haxton’s possible need to secure counsel, the Court also CONTINUES the 

Parties’ June 4, 2019 initial case management conference to July 9, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. The Parties 

shall file a joint case management statement by July 2, 2019. 

V. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS as follows:

 The Court DENIES Haxton’s motion to transfer. 

 The Court GRANTS both Plaintiff’s and Haxton’s requests for judicial notice. 

ECF 26-2; ECF 31-1.

 The Court ORDERS that Haxton’s counsel shall file a request to withdraw as 

counsel by May 30, 2019. 

 The Court CONTINUES the June 4, 2019 initial case management conference to 

July 9, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. The Parties shall file a joint case management statement 

by July 2, 2019. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2019 

SUSAN VAN KEULEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:18-cv-07109-SVK Document 34 Filed 05/10/19 Page 9 of 9