Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02505/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02505-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL BIBO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC.,

Defendant.

NO. C07-2505 TEH

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

TRANSFER VENUE UNDER

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)

This matter came before the Court on Monday September 10, 2007, on a motion to

transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) filed by Defendant Federal Express, Inc.

(“FedEx”). Having carefully reviewed the parties’ papers, the arguments of counsel, and the

record herein, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion for the reasons set forth below. 

BACKGROUND

Defendant FedEx is a United States corporation headquartered in Memphis,

Tennessee, and incorporated in Delaware. FedEx employs couriers and conducts business

throughout the country. Plaintiffs are former and current FedEx delivery drivers residing in

California. 

Plaintiffs allege violations of the California Labor Code and Business and Professions

Code, including malicious and fraudulent failure to pay regular and overtime wages, maintain

pay records and make them available for employees’ review, and allow meal and rest breaks. 

Plaintiffs originally filed suit in San Francisco Superior Court on February 28, 2007. 

Defendant removed the action to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) based on diversity

jurisdiction. Defendant now seeks to transfer venue to the Central District of California

under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). 

Case 3:07-cv-02505-TEH Document 33 Filed 10/10/07 Page 1 of 6
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 FedEx argues briefly in its reply that Karamian should be given deference as the

first-filed case because it was filed nine months before this case. However, since the

Karamian plaintiffs missed the class certification deadline, the issue is now moot because the

first-to-file rule may only be “invoked when a complaint involving the same parties already

been filed in another district.” Pacesetter Systems, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93, 95

(9th Cir. 1982). Now that Karamian will not proceed as a class action, the parties are not the

same as the parties in this case.

2

Two similar cases are currently pending against FedEx in the Central District of

California. FedEx employees filed the first action, Karamian, et. al., v. Federal Express

Corp., as a class action on March 31, 2006. In that case, plaintiffs allege nonpayment of

wages, wrongful termination, and racial discrimination. The Karamian plaintiffs, however,

did not succeed at class certification; the suit will continue as an individual action and is

currently set for trial on January 8, 2008, before the Honorable Dale Fischer in the Central

District.1

 The second action, Brown, et. al., v. Federal Express Corp., was filed in Los

Angeles Superior Court as a class action on July 3, 2006. The Brown plaintiffs allege that

FedEx did not provide meal and rest breaks in violation of the California Labor Code and

Business and Professions Code. Judge Fischer related Brown to Karamian because she

found that both actions called for a similar determination of law and fact and would entail

substantial duplication of labor if heard by another judge. 

 

LEGAL STANDARD

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides that, “[f]or the convenience of the 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). To successfully move for

transfer under this section, the moving party must establish that the action could originally

have been brought in the district to which transfer is sought. Commodity Futures Trading

Comm’n v. Savage, 611 F. 2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979). The moving party also bears the

burden of “establishing that an action should be transferred.” Los Angeles Memorial

Coliseum Comm’n v. Nat’l Football League, 89 F.R.D. 497, 499 (C.D. Cal. 1981), aff’d, 726

F. 2d 1381 (9th Cir. 1984).

Case 3:07-cv-02505-TEH Document 33 Filed 10/10/07 Page 2 of 6
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

In ruling on a motion to transfer, a district court must consider the factors enumerated

in § 1404(a) – i.e., convenience of the parties, convenience of the witnesses, and the interests

of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Other relevant factors include: the plaintiff’s choice of

forum; the local interest in the issue; the relative ease of access to evidence; the availability

of compulsory process for unwilling witnesses and the cost involved in securing willing

witnesses; and the practical issues that make a case easier or more difficult to try in a given

forum, such as familiarity of each forum with applicable law and the relative court

congestion. Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir.

1986); Royal Queenex Enterprises, Inc. v. Sara Lee Corp., No. C-99-4787MJJ, 2000 WL

246599, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2000). The court has the broad discretion to address these

factors based on the particular facts of each case. E. & J. Gallo Winery v. F.&P. S.p.A., 899

F. Supp. 465, 466 (E.D. Cal. 1994). 

DISCUSSION

Neither Plaintiffs nor Defendant disputes that this case could have been brought in

either the Central or Northern Districts of California. Thus, FedEx’s motion to transfer turns

on whether the Court finds it appropriate to transfer the case to the Central District “[f]or the

convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interests of justice.” 28 U.S.C.§ 1404(a). 

1. Plaintiffs’ Choice of Forum

The plaintiff’s choice of forum is afforded substantial weight in the § 1404(a)

balancing test, and courts should not generally transfer unless the convenience and justice

factors strongly favor the defendant’s choice of venue. Securities Investor Protection Corp.

v. Vigman, 764 F.2d 1309, 1317 (9th Cir. 1985) (quoting Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S.

501, 508 (1947)). Thus, with certain exceptions, “[t]he defendant must make a strong

showing of inconvenience to warrant upsetting the plaintiff’s choice of forum.” Decker Coal

Co., 805 F.2d at 843. 

The plaintiff’s choice of forum is given less weight where the plaintiff does not reside

in the selected forum and the forum has no interest in the alleged unlawful activity. Chrysler

Case 3:07-cv-02505-TEH Document 33 Filed 10/10/07 Page 3 of 6
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

4

Capital Corp. v. Woelhing, 663 F. Supp. 478, 482 (D. Del. 1987). These exceptions are not

applicable here because the named plaintiffs reside in this district, and this Court has a clear

interest in protecting such residents against unlawful employment practices. 

FedEx also argues that the Court should give Plaintiffs’ forum choice less deference

because this case is a class action. Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987). 

However, Plaintiffs’ choice of forum remains significant in a class action where it is

preferable to other forums in administering the action and protecting the class. National

Super Spuds, Inc. v. New York Mercantile Exchange, 425 F.Supp 665, 668 (S.D.N.Y. 1977)

(citing Koster v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U.S. 518, 526 (1947)). The Northern

District of California is preferable to the Central District because all of the named plaintiffs

live in this district, as do many of the other important witnesses, such as FedEx’s human

resources representatives and managers. As a result, the Court gives Plaintiffs’ choice of

forum deference, which weighs against transfer. 

2. Convenience of the Parties

It is not disputed that the named plaintiffs live in the San Francisco Bay Area and that

Defendant is headquartered in Tennessee. Thus, the Northern District of California is no

more or less convenient for Defendant than the Central District. The Northern District of

California is, however, more convenient to the named plaintiffs since they all reside here. 

While it may be more convenient for FedEx to litigate in the Central District because defense

counsel is located there, “convenience of counsel is not a consideration in determining

whether to transfer an action.” E. & J. Gallo Winery, 899 F.Supp. at 466; accord In re

Horseshoe Entertainment, 337 F.3d 429, 434 (5th Cir. 2003); Solomon v. Continental Am.

Life Ins. Co., 472 F.2d 1043, 1047 (3d Cir. 1973). Given that Defendant has not described

any real inconvenience that would result for the parties if the motion is denied, the Court

finds that this factor does not weigh in favor of transfer. 

3. Convenience of the Witnesses and Access to Evidence

The Court also finds that FedEx has failed to meet its burden regarding the

convenience of the witnesses and access to evidence. “To demonstrate an inconvenience to

Case 3:07-cv-02505-TEH Document 33 Filed 10/10/07 Page 4 of 6
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

witnesses, the moving party must identify relevant witnesses, state their location, and

describe their testimony and its relevance.” Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Rose Fund, LLC, No.

C 03-04593WHA, 2004 WL 2445242, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2004); see also Royal

Queentex, 2000 WL 246599 at *6. 

Defendant, however, failed to identify any relevant witnesses that would be

inconvenienced by a trial in the Northern District. FedEx concedes that both venues are

equally convenient or inconvenient for the witnesses based at the company’s headquarters in

Tennessee, and the company named no specific witnesses that live outside the Northern

District. Defendant pointed only to the fact that if a class is ultimately certified there may be

more class members located in southern California because, as of August 15, 2007, 63% of

all active FedEx couriers in California are employed there. However, the fact that slightly

more than a majority of couriers are currently employed in southern California has no

bearing on the convenience of the forum to the named plaintiffs who will ultimately be

representing the class’s interests. Defendant’s willingness to take the named plaintiffs’

depositions in the Northern District and to “bear the inconvenience” to any FedEx employees

who may have to travel from the San Francisco Bay Area if the action is transferred similarly

do not weigh in favor of transfer. Finally, FedEx failed to establish that there are any

voluminous documents the parties must exchange or that there is any evidence in the Central

District that would need to be transferred to San Francisco. Therefore, this factor does not

weigh in favor of transfer. 

4. Interests of Justice

Defendant’s primary argument is that transferring the case will serve the interests of

justice. In determining whether a case should be transferred based on the interests of justice,

the Court can consider whether transfer will avoid duplicative litigation, affect judicial

economy, and limit waste of time and money. Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616

(1964). FedEx argues that because there are two related actions already pending against it in

the Central District, this Court should transfer the case there to prevent duplication of efforts

and inconsistent legal results related to the class actions. 

Case 3:07-cv-02505-TEH Document 33 Filed 10/10/07 Page 5 of 6
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

FedEx’s argument is not ultimately persuasive. Although Karamian was filed as a

class action, the plaintiffs failed to move for class certification before the court’s deadline. 

As a result, Karamian is continuing as an individual action on behalf of only three named

plaintiffs, and there is no remaining threat of inconsistent adjudication regarding which

plaintiffs are part of the class or on the class certification issue. Although the potential for

inconsistent rulings persists on pre-trial disputes or on the case’s final disposition, FedEx has

failed to provide the Court with any specific information that indicates there is a high risk for

inconsistent adjudication. Additionally, such inconsistencies can only be avoided if the

Court assumes that Judge Fischer will relate Bibo to Karamian and Brown, which is

speculative at this point. The Court can also avoid duplicative discovery by coordinating

discovery with the actions pending before Judge Fischer in the Central District. In light of all

of the above, the interests of justice weigh in favor of transfer, but only slightly. 

CONCLUSION

In sum, the Court finds that FedEx has not made “a strong showing of inconvenience

to warrant upsetting the plaintiff's choice of forum.” Decker Coal Co., 805 F.2d at 843. The

interests of justice are not strong enough to overcome the deference the Court must give to

Plaintiffs’ forum choice, and Defendant has not demonstrated that maintaining the venue in

the Northern District will result in any inconvenience to the parties or witnesses. 

Accordingly, with good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s

motion to transfer venue is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/09/07 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:07-cv-02505-TEH Document 33 Filed 10/10/07 Page 6 of 6