Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-06192/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-06192-0/pdf.json

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

JOSEPH FLYNN,

Plaintiff,

v.

INFORMATICA, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-06192-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO 

TRANSFER

Re: Dkt. No. 22

Presently before the Court is Defendant Informatica, LLC’s motion to transfer venue to the 

Western District of Texas. Dkt. Nos. 22, 22-1 (“Mot.”). Plaintiff Joseph Flynn does not oppose 

the transfer. Dkt. No. 27. The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to transfer and 

TRANSFERS this action to the Western District of Texas. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“For 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). The transfer statute exists “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). The moving party 

bears the burden of showing that the transferee district is a “more appropriate forum.” See Jones 

v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2000). And the district court has broad 

discretion in deciding whether or not to transfer an action. See Ventress v. Japan Airlines, 486 

F.3d 1111, 1118 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[T]he district court’s decision to change venue is reviewed for 

abuse of discretion. Weighing of the factors for and against transfer involves subtle considerations 

and is best left to the discretion of the trial judge.”) (citations and quotations omitted).

Case 4:19-cv-06192-HSG Document 33 Filed 01/06/20 Page 1 of 3
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

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff filed this collective action complaint against Defendant for failure to pay overtime 

compensation in violation of the FLSA. Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.”). Plaintiff is a citizen of Texas and 

worked for Defendant in its Austin, Texas location. Compl. ¶¶ 7–8. Defendant is a Delaware 

limited liability company with its headquarters in Redwood City, California. Dkt. No. 22-3 at ¶ 3. 

The putative FLSA collective is defined as:

[A]ll inside all inside sales employees (including Business 

Development Managers, Inside Sales Representatives, Sales 

Development Representatives, or other positions with similar job 

titles and/or duties) (collectively “Inside Sales Representatives”) 

who work or have worked for Informatica anytime from three years 

prior to the filing of this action through the present (the “Collective 

Period”).

Compl. ¶ 2. At the time of the filing of this motion, there were two opt-in Plaintiffs: Alison 

Blakely, who worked in Defendant’s Austin location, and Thomas Chard, who worked in the 

Redwood City location. Dkt. No. 22-3 at ¶¶ 13, 15. 

In its unopposed motion, Defendant claims that the case could have been brought in the 

Western District of Texas. Mot. at 10–11. The transferee district has federal question subject 

matter jurisdiction because the complaint alleges a violation of the FLSA Id. at 11. According to 

Defendant, that court has specific personal jurisdiction over it because Defendant “actually 

conducts business and maintains offices in Texas,” and “employed Plaintiff, Opt-In Plaintiff 

Blakley and the vast majority of the other putative collective members in Texas.” Id. at 11. And 

venue properly lies in the Western District because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in 

that district. Id. 

With respect to whether the considerations of convenience and fairness favor transfer, 

Defendant represents that the convenience of all parties and non-party witnesses favors 

transferring this action because it is the “situs of the material events giving rise to this lawsuit.” 

Id. at 15. Specifically, Defendant claims that the inside sales efforts were predominately run out 

of the Austin, Texas office, id. at 9; the “vast majority of the other putative collective members” 

are in Texas, id. at 11; during the relevant period, Defendant employed only six inside sales 

representatives in California, and those six reported to the VP of Sales in Austin and were 

Case 4:19-cv-06192-HSG Document 33 Filed 01/06/20 Page 2 of 3
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

terminated or transferred “just one week into the potential statutory period,” id. at 9; the 

supervisors are all in Texas and decisions concerning compensation and classification were made 

from the Texas office, id. at 14; and employee witnesses “critical to this matter” reside in and 

around Austin, id. at 16. Further, Defendant contends that because “Austin, Texas is the place 

where decisions concerning the alleged wrongdoing concerning job classifications and pay were 

made,” the Western District of Texas has a substantial interest in the case. Mot. at 19. 

Plaintiff does not oppose the motion, and the Court finds transfer is warranted. 

III. CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS the unopposed motion to transfer. Dkt. No. 22. The Clerk of Court

shall TRANSFER this case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, 

and close the file. The Court also TERMINATES AS MOOT the parties’ stipulation to cancel 

the case management conference. Dkt. No. 32. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/6/2020

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-06192-HSG Document 33 Filed 01/06/20 Page 3 of 3