Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01195/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01195-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARC MARCHIOLI,

Plaintiff,

v.

PRE-EMPLOY.COM, INC., 

EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER, 

and DOES 1 THROUGH 10,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-01195-MCE-AC

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

On May 23, 2016, Plaintiff Marc Marchioli filed a class action complaint in this 

Court against Defendants Pre-Employ.com, Inc. (“Pre-Employ”), Eisenhower Medical 

Center (“EMC”), and Does 1 through 10, alleging that Defendants violated certain 

requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 USC § 1681a et seq.,

thereby also violating California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 

§ 17200 et seq. 2:16-cv-01115-MCE-AC, ECF No. 1. On June 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed an 

individual complaint against the same Defendants for violations of the FCRA, as well as 

for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair 

dealing, intentional interference with contractual relations, intentional infliction of 

emotional distress, intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic 

relations, and violation of Labor Code § 1198.5. 2:16-cv-1195-MCE-AC, ECF No. 1. On 

Case 2:16-cv-01195-MCE-AC Document 35 Filed 02/21/17 Page 1 of 5
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

August 22, 2016, this Court issued an order relating the cases. Id. at ECF No. 6. On 

November 3, 2016, this Court granted Defendant EMC’s Motion to Transfer Venue, 

transferring venue in the class action to the Central District of California. 2:16-cv-01115-

MCE-AC, at ECF No. 34. 1 

Presently before the Court is Defendant EMC’s Motion to Transfer Venue in 

Plaintiff’s related individual case. ECF No. 14. For the reasons set forth below as well 

as in this Court’s previous order transferring venue in Plaintiff’s class action, EMC’s 

present motion is GRANTED.2

STANDARD

“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). 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 quotation marks omitted). On a motion to transfer venue, the 

moving party must make “a strong showing of inconvenience to warrant upsetting the 

plaintiff's choice of forum.” Hope v. Otis Elevator Co., 389 F. Supp. 2d 1235, 1243 (E.D.

Cal. 2005) (quoting Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 

(9th Cir.1986)). The Court has discretion in deciding whether such transfer is warranted 

based on an “individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.” 

Van Dusen, 376 U.S. at 622.

///

 1 That order also denied without prejudice EMC’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8) and Motion to 

Strike (ECF No. 11), Pre-Employ’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 16), and Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for 

Order Compelling Defendants to Participate in Discovery (ECF No. 29). 

2 Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, the Court ordered this matter 

submitted on the briefing. E.D. Cal. R. 230(g).

Case 2:16-cv-01195-MCE-AC Document 35 Filed 02/21/17 Page 2 of 5
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

Once the court determines a case could have been brought before the proposed 

transferee court, it must consider a number of private and public factors relating to the 

interests of the parties and the judiciary. For example, the Court may consider: (1) the

plaintiff's choice of forum, (2) the respective parties' contacts with the forum, (3) the 

contacts relating to the plaintiff's cause of action in the chosen forum, (4) the differences 

in the costs of litigation in the two forums, (5) the availability of compulsory process to 

compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses, (6) the ease of access to sources of 

proof, (7) the complexity of the governing law, and (8) other factors that, in the interest of 

justice, impact the convenience or fairness of a particular venue. Jones v. GNC 

Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498–499 (9th Cir. 2000).

ANALYSIS

As in the related class action, the parties do not dispute that Plaintiff Marchioli 

could have brought his claims in the Central District. The Court therefore turns to the

factors identified above. Rather than focusing equally on all potentially relevant factors, 

however, the Court incorporates its previous analysis here and limits its present analysis 

to those factors that are of particular significance in Plaintiff’s individual case.

Were the Court to consider this motion separate and apart from EMC’s motion to 

transfer venue in the related class action, transfer would nevertheless be appropriate 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and the factors set forth in Jones, 211 F.3d at 498–499. As 

in the related class action, while the factor of convenience of the witnesses appears to 

be neutral, and thus does not tip in favor of transfer, the convenience of the parties tips 

in favor of transfer because: (1) the Plaintiff’s choice of forum is given less weight where 

he resides outside of the selected forum and both venues are therefore equally 

inconvenient to Plaintiff; and (2) the only party likely to be inconvenienced by transfer—

Defendant Pre-Employ—has expressed its consent.3 In addition, the facts surrounding 

 3 Plaintiff correctly argues that Defendant EMC cannot rely here on the diminished weight given to

Case 2:16-cv-01195-MCE-AC Document 35 Filed 02/21/17 Page 3 of 5
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

the majority of Plaintiff’s individual claims reveal Plaintiff’s direct contacts with the 

Central District, tipping this factor further in favor of transfer.

Additionally, as this Court had previously determined in connection with the 

related class action, even though access to sources of proof and the public’s interest in 

the litigation are both neutral to transfer, the interests of justice overall tip in favor of 

transfer because the Central District is less congested than the Eastern District. See

2:16-cv-01115-MCE-AC, ECF No. 34 at 8–10. Here, judicial economy weighs even 

more heavily in favor of transfer because Plaintiff’s class action will now be heard in the 

Central District. Judicial economy and efficiency would certainly be served by 

transferring Plaintiff’s individual case to the Central District, which has already or will 

soon commit resources to the adjudication of Plaintiff’s related class action. See

Anderson v. Michaels Stores, Inc., 2014 WL 1613952, Case No. 14-cv-0500-WBS-EFB

(E.D. Cal. April 22, 2014) (noting that “the interest of justice can be decisive” and “an 

important consideration in determining whether the interests of justice dictate a transfer

of venue is the pendency of a related case in the transferee forum”) (internal citations 

and quotation marks omitted). This fact alone would warrant transfer to the Central 

District.4

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

 Plaintiff’s choice of venue in putative class actions as it did previously. Nevertheless, this factor still tips in 

favor of transfer, as do the interests of justice, discussed below.

 

4 The Court is not convinced that Defendant EMC’s prominence in the community will influence 

Plaintiff’s ability to obtain a fair trial in the Central District, as Plaintiff claims. See Pl’s Op. to Mot. (ECF 

No. 27) at 14.

Case 2:16-cv-01195-MCE-AC Document 35 Filed 02/21/17 Page 4 of 5
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

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant EMC’s Motion to Transfer Venue is 

GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to transfer this case to the United States 

District Court for the Central District of California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2017

Case 2:16-cv-01195-MCE-AC Document 35 Filed 02/21/17 Page 5 of 5