Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01298/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01298-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RENEE F. AMOCHAEV,

Plaintiffs, No. C 05-1298 PJH

v. ORDER DENYING MOTION

TO TRANSFER VENUE

CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

Defendant Citigroup Global Markets Inc. d/b/a Smith Barney’s (“Smith Barney”) motion

to transfer venue to the Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) came

on for hearing on September 14, 2005 before this court. Plaintiffs appeared through their

counsel, Kelly Dermody, and defendant appeared through its counsel, Jay Cohen. Having

read the parties’ papers and considered carefully their arguments and the relevant legal

authority, the court hereby DENIES defendant’s motion to transfer venue for the reasons

stated at the hearing and summarized as follows. 

Defendant seeks to transfer this case to the Southern District of New York under 

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) on the grounds that plaintiffs’ claims here are “related to” an earlier class

action in Martens v. Smith Barney, Inc. and that the Southern District of New York retains

exclusive jurisdiction over the enforcement of that settlement stipulation. 

Defendant’s argument that the interests of justice weigh clearly in favor of transfer is not

persuasive. The Martens case ended seven years ago and all obligations under its settlement

agreement expired over two years prior to the filing of this lawsuit. Furthermore, half of the

named plaintiffs and approximately one-half of the class plaintiffs in this action were not

employed by Smith Barney during the Martens class period. Thus, the Southern District of

New York has not retained jurisdiction over at least half of this case which involves different

Case 4:05-cv-01298-PJH Document 57 Filed 09/16/05 Page 1 of 2
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

plaintiffs bringing different claims for a different class period and which does not “arise out of”

the previous action. To the extent that jurisdiction has been retained over claims in this case

determined to relate to the closed Martens case, that court may act on the motions pending

before it to reopen the Martens case and to enjoin the plaintiffs from participating in this suit. 

In that event, this court will entertain a request to revisit the transfer issue. 

In addition, the defendant’s motion to transfer meets few, if any, of the traditional criteria

for transfer under § 1404(a), including the special venue provisions of Title VII. All named

plaintiffs and members of the subclass were employed in Northern California, employment

records are maintained in Northern California, the majority of parties and witnesses to the

alleged discrimination are located here, at least some claims are brought under California

law, and the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the Northern District. Not only do

the plaintiffs have significant contacts with the forum, but the forum has an interest in both the

parties and the subject matter. 

Finally, while a plaintiff’s choice of forum is less significant in a nationwide class action,

a Title VII “plaintiff’s choice is entitled to greater deference as a matter of law, even where the

case is brought as a class action.” Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 372 F. Supp. 2d 530,

537 (N.D.Cal. 2005). Coupled with the overwhelming number of § 1404(a) factors weighing

against transfer, the deference due a Title VII plaintiff’s forum choice provides a significant

reason to keep this case in the Northern District of California. This court finds that Smith

Barney has not met its burden of demonstrating that the case requires transfer for the

convenience of parties and in the interest of justice. 

For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby DENIES Smith Barney’s motion to transfer

venue. This order fully adjudicates the motion found at number 34 on the clerk’s docket for this

case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2005

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-01298-PJH Document 57 Filed 09/16/05 Page 2 of 2