Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02609/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02609-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

O

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GINA BALASANYAN; NUNE

NALBANDIAN, on behalf of

themselves all others

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NORDSTROM, INC., a

Washington corporation,

Defendant. ___________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. CV 11-05689 DDP (JCGx)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION

TO TRANSFER

[Dkt. No. 11]

Presently before the court is Defendant’s Motion to Transfer

Venue to the Southern District of California. Having considered

the submissions of the parties, the court grants the motion and

adopts the following order. 

I. Background

Plaintiffs are employed by Defendant on a commission basis at

Nordstrom stores in Los Angeles County. (Complaint ¶¶ 1, 3.) 

Plaintiffs allege that they are required to perform stocking and

marketing duties that cannot result in commissioned sales, and that

Plaintiffs are not compensated in any way for this “Non-Sell

Case 3:11-cv-02609-JM-JLB Document 30 Filed 11/09/11 Page 1 of 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

2

Period” work. (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14, 16.) Plaintiffs therefore filed

the instant action on behalf of a purported nationwide class,

alleging violations of California’s minimum wage laws, federal Fair

Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) minimum wage violations, and unfair

business practices in violation of California Business and

Professions Code Section 7200. Defendant now moves to transfer

this case to the Southern District of California. 

II. Discussion

“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest

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

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

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Forum non conveniens-type considerations,

including the public and private interest factors affecting the

convenience of a particular forum, are helpful in deciding transfer

motions under Section 1404. Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison

Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). This court, however, has

discretion to adjudicate transfer motion “according to an

individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and

fairness.” Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th

Cir. 2000). The interests of justice, including judicial economy,

may be particularly important in some cases. Wood v. Best Buy Co.,

Inc., 2011 WL 3740812 *1 (N.D. Cal. August 25, 2011); Fraser v.

Genesco, 2011 WL 4566312 *3 (E.D. Cal. September 29, 2011). 

Here, Defendant argues that this case should be transferred to

the Southern District because it presents issues identical to those

presented in an earlier-filed action, Maraventano v. Nordstrom,

Inc., 10-CV-02761-JM (WMC). Like Plaintiffs here, the Maraventano

plaintiffs allege that Defendant did not compensate commissioned

Case 3:11-cv-02609-JM-JLB Document 30 Filed 11/09/11 Page 2 of 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 1

 Defendant’s counsel is located in San Diego. 

3

salespeople for all hours worked in Nordstrom stores. The

Maraventano plaintiffs purportedly represent all of Defendant’s

commissioned salespeople within California, and bring only state

law claims for minimum wage violations and unfair business

practices. Plaintiffs in this case are members of the Maraventano

purported class, and vice versa. 

“Although great weight is generally accorded plaintiff’s

choice of forum, when an individual brings a derivative suit or

represents a class, the named plaintiff’s choice of forum is given

less weight.” Lou v. Belzberg, 874 F.2d 730 (9th Cir. 1987). 

While, the court recognizes that the named Plaintiffs here reside

in the Central District, and would be somewhat inconvenienced by

travel to the Southern District. The court notes, however, that

the distances in question are not great, and that the Southern

District of California is easily accessible from Los Angeles by

both car and rail. The convenience of the parties, therefore, is a

neutral factor in the transfer analysis.1 Nor is the Central

District better suited to resolve this matter than the Southern

District. At the same time, the convenience of witnesses and ease

of access to proof weighs in favor of transfer. Absent transfer,

many of the same witnesses, including residents of Washington, and

documents will need to be produced twice. Transfer, and potential

consolidation, will likely do much to resolve the “practical

problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious, and

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

///

Case 3:11-cv-02609-JM-JLB Document 30 Filed 11/09/11 Page 3 of 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

4

Furthermore, “to permit a situation in which two cases

involving precisely the same issues in different District Courts

leads to the wastefulness of time, energy and money that § 1404(a)

was designed to prevent.” Wood, 2011 WL * 1 (quoting Continental

Grain Co. v. Barge FBL-585, 364 U.S. 19, 26 (1960). As in Wood,

Plaintiffs’ claims and the class they seek to represent are nearly

identical to those in the case pending in the Southern District. 

Id. Thus, “the interest of justice, including interests in

judicial economy and preventing inconsistent rulings, weighs

heavily in favor of transfer.” Id.; See also Bennett v. Bed Bath

and Beyond, Inc., 2011 WL 3022126 *2 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2011)

(“[T]he interest in judicial economy is enough to support transfer

regardless of the other factors.”).

III. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s Motion to Transfer

Venue to the Southern District of California is GRANTED. In

addition, the MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION (DOCKET NUMBER 19) is

vacated to be re-filed and re-noticed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 9, 2011

DEAN D. PREGERSON 

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-02609-JM-JLB Document 30 Filed 11/09/11 Page 4 of 4