Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00098/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00098-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Denial of Overtime Compensation

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 The original complaint only named three plaintiffs. After defendant brought this motion

plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with a fourth named plaintiff.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LISA EVANCHO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. INC., and Does 1 to

10, Inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-00098 SI

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO TRANSFER

On April 27, 2007, the Court heard argument on defendant’s motion to transfer venue to the

District of New Jersey. Having considered the arguments of the parties and the papers submitted, and

for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS defendant’s motion. 

BACKGROUND

This is a wage and hour violations suit brought by four named plaintiffs on behalf of a putative

class against defendant sanofi-adventis U.S. Inc.1

 Plaintiffs and all putative class members were

employed by defendant as pharmaceutical representatives at all times relevant to the complaint. First

Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶¶ 7-12. The FAC describes four putative classes: a nationwide Fair

Labor Standards Act (FLSA) class, a Pennsylvania class bringing Pennsylvania state law claims, a

California class bringing California state law claims, and a nationwide Employee Retirement Income

Security Act (ERISA) class. See FAC ¶¶ 27-58.

Case 3:07-cv-00098-SI Document 81 Filed 05/03/07 Page 1 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

The website for the sanofi-aventis group, en.sanofi-aventis.com, reports that defendant sanofiaventis U.S., Inc. is the United States affiliate of the sanofi-aventis Group, an international organization

with almost 100,000 employees worldwide, on 300 sites in 100 countries. The website for sanofiaventis U.S., Inc., www.sanofi-aventis.us, reports that there are approximately 16,000 employees in the

United States, of whom approximately 8000 are field sales professionals. The website reports that

sanofi-aventis U.S., Inc. maintains14 geographical sites throughout the U.S., none of which is located

in California. 

2

There are four named plaintiffs. One resides in the Northern District of California, one in the

Central District of California, one in Pennsylvania, and one in Florida. FAC ¶¶ 8-11. Among other

claims, plaintiffs contend that they worked hours in excess of forty hours per workweek without

receiving overtime compensation. FAC ¶¶ 8-11. 

Defendant is a Delaware corporation with its central offices in New Jersey. Declaration of

Kelly Byrne (“Byrne Decl.”) ¶ 2.2 Defendant’s principal place of business is its Bridgewater, New

Jersey location, which houses the company’s corporate human resources, payroll, benefits, legal, sales

operations, marketing, and compliance department. Motion to Transfer Venue (“Mot.”) at 2. While

defendant has its central offices in New Jersey, it has a “Field Sales operation” which is dispersed across

the country, and District Sales Managers located throughout the country. Plaintiffs’ Opposition

(“Oppo.”) at 2. Defendant states that it does not maintain any corporate or regional offices in California.

Mot. at 2. 

Now before the Court is defendant’s motion to transfer venue to the District of New Jersey. 

LEGAL STANDARD

“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may

transfer any civil matter to any other district or division where it might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1404(a). The purpose of Section 1404(a) is 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) (internal citations and quotation omitted). A motion for transfer

lies within the broad discretion of the district court, and must be determined on an individualized basis.

See Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000).

To support a motion for transfer, the moving party must establish: (1) that venue is proper in

Case 3:07-cv-00098-SI Document 81 Filed 05/03/07 Page 2 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

the transferor district; (2) that the transferee district is one where the action might have been brought;

and (3) that the transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and will promote the

interests of justice. See Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 820 F. Supp. 503,

506 (C.D. Cal. 1992). Once venue is determined to be proper in both districts, courts evaluate the

following factors to determine which venue is more convenient to the parties and the witnesses and will

promote the interests of justice: (1) plaintiff’s choice of forum, (2) convenience of the parties, (3)

convenience of the witnesses, (4) ease of access to the evidence, (5) familiarity of each forum with the

applicable law, (6) feasibility of consolidation with other claims, (7) any local interest in the

controversy, and (8) the relative court congestion and time of trial in each forum. See Williams v.

Bowman, 157 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 1106 (N.D. Cal. 2001). 

DISCUSSION

The parties appear to agree that venue would be proper in either this district or the District of

New Jersey. The key dispute, therefore, is whether the transfer will serve the convenience of the parties

and witnesses, and will promote the interests of justice. As discussed, courts evaluate several factors

in making this determination. On the whole, the balance of factors in this case favors transfer to New

Jersey. 

1. Plaintiffs’ Choice of Forum

 Defendant asserts that the deference usually given to plaintiffs’ choice of forum should be given

little to no weight because it is a putative class action. Mot. at 6. The Court finds that plaintiffs’ choice

of forum in this matter should be accorded some deference.

A plaintiff’s choice of forum generally receives deference in a motion to transfer venue. Lewis

v. ABC Business Servs., Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 413 (6th Cir. 1998). In class actions, however, a plaintiff’s

choice of forum is often accorded less weight. See Koster v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 330

U.S. 518 (1947); Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Although great weight is

generally accorded plaintiff's choice of forum . . . when an individual . . . represents a class, the named

plaintiff’s choice of forum is given less weight.”). Nonetheless, even in a class action,

Case 3:07-cv-00098-SI Document 81 Filed 05/03/07 Page 3 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

The Declaration of Kelly Byrne in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue, at ¶ 9,

asserts that about 2,398 sales professionals are employed on the east coast (comprising Maine, New

Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland,

Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida) and about 798 are employed on the west

coast (Washington, Oregon and California). 

4

[i]n judging the weight to be accorded [plaintiff’s] choice of forum, consideration must

be given to the extent of both [plaintiff’s] and the [defendants’] contacts with the forum,

including those relating to [plaintiff’s] cause of action. . . . If the operative facts have not

occurred within the forum and the forum has no interest in the parties or subject matter,

[plaintiff’s] choice is entitled to only minimal consideration.

Lou, 834 F.2d at 739 (citations omitted).

Under this guidance, the Court accords plaintiffs’ choice of forum some weight. While the

putative class members are scattered across the country, one of the named plaintiffs resides in this

District and another resides elsewhere in California. FAC ¶¶ 8-11. Furthermore, defendant does not

appear to dispute that the California plaintiffs performed much of their work for defendant in California,

including in this district. Oppo. at 5; Mot. at 7. Several of plaintiffs’ claims are California state law

labor claims. Thus, this is not a case where “the operative facts have not occurred within the forum and

the forum has no interest in the parties or subject matter,” Lou, 834 F.2d at 739. Therefore, plaintiffs’

choice of forum is accorded some deference.

2. Convenience of the Parties and Witnesses and Ease of Access to Evidence

Defendant argues that the convenience of the parties and witnesses, as well as ease of access to

the evidence, weigh heavily in favor of transfer. The only named defendant has its principal place of

business in New Jersey, and two of the named plaintiffs live on the East Coast. Plaintiffs argue in

response that there are no named plaintiffs living or working in New Jersey, there is no New Jersey

class, and there has been no showing that any of the putative FLSA class members work in New Jersey.

For the following reasons, the Court agrees with defendant that this factor weighs in favor of transfer.

Defendant asserts that more putative class members of the FLSA action work on the east coast

than on the west coast.3

 Though the precise numbers are not clear, plaintiffs do not dispute this general

fact. Both parties appear to agree that a significant number of class members will be called as witnesses,

to provide testimony about the nature of the jobs at issue.

Case 3:07-cv-00098-SI Document 81 Filed 05/03/07 Page 4 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

Defendant further argues that many of the key witnesses are located in defendant’s New Jersey

headquarters, as well as critical documents and other evidence. Defendant states that the key operational

and administrative personnel who would testify as to payroll practices and company policies regarding

the positions at issue are in New Jersey. In its supporting declarations, defendant identifies the names

and locations of the Vice Presidents of Sales, Vice Presidents/Senior Directors of Marketing, relevant

Human Resources personnel, District Sales Managers and Regional Sales Directors for three of the four

named plaintiffs. See Byrne Decl. ¶¶ 3-11; see also Supplemental Declaration of Kelly Byrne (“Byrne

Supp. Decl.”) ¶¶ 2-5 (Docket No. 68-1). The majority of these individuals, though not all of them, work

in defendant’s Bridgewater, New Jersey headquarters. Defendant reports that for plaintiff Evancho, five

of those individuals work in the New Jersey headquarters and one works in Columbus, Ohio; for

plaintiff Keeler, seven work in the New Jersey headquarters, one works in Scottsdale, Arizona, two

work in Atlanta, Georgia, and one works in Palm City, Florida; and for plaintiff Guiriba, eight work in

the New Jersey headquarters, two work in Scottsdale, Arizona, one works in Atlanta, Georgia, and one

works in San Francisco, California. See Byrne Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 3-5.

In response, plaintiffs argue that there will likely be witnesses from outside of New Jersey as

well, including the four named plaintiffs, other members of the putative classes, and plaintiffs’ direct

supervisors (“District Sales Managers”). Plaintiffs also argue that because they are party witnesses, the

convenience of the corporate witnesses identified by defendant should be afforded less weight. 

The Court agrees with plaintiffs that “[t]he reality in nationwide class action suits such as this

one is that witnesses live throughout the country.” Oppo. at 7:8-9. Nonetheless, it also appears that a

large number of critical witnesses live and work in New Jersey, and a greater proportion of the putative

class members lives and works on the east coast than on the west coast. The Court therefore finds that

the convenience of the witnesses factor weighs substantially in favor of transfer. 

Other district courts have reached the same conclusion in similar cases. In Kettler v. Presstek,

Inc., No. 3:03:-CV-0846-D, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13292, at *1 (N.D. Tex. July 31, 2003), for

example, a Texas district court transferred venue in a FLSA case to New Hampshire, where the

employer had its principal place of business. The named plaintiff, a former Customer Service

Representative for defendant, was a resident of Texas. The defendant employed many Customer Service

Case 3:07-cv-00098-SI Document 81 Filed 05/03/07 Page 5 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6

Representatives around the country. In connection with their motion to transfer venue, the defendant

“identifie[d] six anticipated witnesses, and . . . specifie[d] the general content of their testimony. . . .

Each works at [defendant’s] office in Hudson, New Hampshire.” Id. at *7. After weighing all of the

factors, the court granted the motion to transfer venue. 

More recently, the district court for the Southern District of New York transferred venue to New

Jersey in a case, like this one, alleging FLSA violations by a New Jersey based pharmaceutical

company. See Freeman v. Hoffman-La Roche Inc., No. 06CIV13497, 2007 WL 895282, at *1 (S.D.N.Y.

Mar. 21, 2007). In Freeman, the court found that the convenience of the New Jersey-based corporate

witnesses was an important factor. See id. at *2. 

In Waldmer v. SER Solutions, Inc., No. 05-2098-JAR, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4934, at *1 (D.

Kan. Feb. 3, 2006), the district court transferred venue in a somewhat analogous case. There, the

defendant was headquartered in Virginia, and had over a hundred employees scattered across the nation.

See id. at *3. The plaintiff worked in Kansas. See id. In support of transfer, the defendants identified

three non-party witnesses, and six party witnesses, who resided in Virginia. See id. at *10-*15. This

fact was important to the court. See id. Furthermore, the court noted the fact that “the logical origin of

this dispute is Virginia. It was at the company’s headquarters in Virginia that [defendant]’s personnel

made and implemented the decision to treat plaintiffs as exempt under the FLSA. No company policies

were ever established in Kansas.” Id. at *17. Similarly here, it appears that defendant made most, if

not all, of the relevant personnel decisions in New Jersey, at its headquarters. The only difference

between this case and Waldmer is that here, defendant has not identified any important non-party

witnesses who reside in New Jersey. 

3. Familiarity of Each Forum with the Applicable Law

This factor weighs in favor of the plaintiffs. Both districts are familiar with federal law.

However, this Court is more familiar with California law than the District of New Jersey, and neither

court can claim more familiarity with Pennsylvania law. Therefore, since there are California state law

claims at issue in this case, this factor favors the Northern District of California.

Case 3:07-cv-00098-SI Document 81 Filed 05/03/07 Page 6 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

7

4. Remaining Factors

The remaining factors, feasibility of consolidation with other claims, local interest in the

controversy, and the relative court congestion and time of trial in each forum, are neutral. There is no

evidence of other claims to consolidate. While New Jersey has an interest in the controversy, as the

resident state of defendant’s headquarters, California has an interest in protecting the rights of the

putative California class members. Finally, the evidence provided by both parties shows that both

districts are busy; neither one will provide substantial advantages as far as court congestion.

CONCLUSION

Viewing the totality of the factors, the Court finds that this case belongs in New Jersey. A larger

proportion of the putative nationwide class members resides on the East Coast than the West Coast.

Furthermore, the policies and practices of defendants that underlie this action originated largely at

defendant’s headquarters in New Jersey. For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court

hereby GRANTS defendant’s motion to transfer venue. [Docket 14] All other pending motions

[defendant’s motion to dismiss, ## 19, 59, 70, and plaintiffs’ motion re collective action/notice, ##45,

56] are deferred pending transfer. 

Plaintiffs earlier expressed concern that the statute of limitations on class members’ FLSA

claims was being adversely affected by the delay in sending notice occasioned by defendant’s motion

to change venue. Accordingly, this Court previously tolled the FLSA statute of limitations for two

weeks, from May 18, 2007 to June 1, 2007. For similar reasons, this Court tolls the statute of limitations

for an additional four week period, from June 1, 2007 until June 29, 2007, to avoid collateral prejudice

caused by this transfer order. 

As a final matter, the Court must also address the “supplemental memorandum” filed by

plaintiffs on April 27, 2007, after hearing on this motion was held. In the supplemental memorandum,

plaintiffs request that the Court consider severing and retaining the California state law claims, and the

federal claims of California class members. The Court agrees with defendant that plaintiffs’

supplemental memorandum is both procedurally improper and substantively unconvincing. Plaintiffs

provide no explanation for their failure to raise this proposal in the normal course of briefing, or at the

Case 3:07-cv-00098-SI Document 81 Filed 05/03/07 Page 7 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

8

very least, prior to the hearing. Moreover, the Court finds that severing the class would run contrary

to the interests of the courts, and the interests of the class itself. The Court therefore DENIES plaintiffs’

request to sever. [Docket No. 77]

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00098-SI Document 81 Filed 05/03/07 Page 8 of 8