Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02165/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02165-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Julia Ann Talley, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Pembrooke Occupational Health, Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-2165-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendant’s motion to dismiss, or alternatively to transfer

venue (doc. 7), plaintiff’s response (doc. 11), and defendant’s reply (doc. 14). 

Plaintiff, Julia Talley, is an Arizona resident and an employee of defendant

Pembrooke Occupational Health, Inc., a Virginia corporation, headquartered in Richmond,

Virginia. Plaintiff filed this action in the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County,

alleging that Pembrooke breached her employment contract by failing to pay commissions

she had earned. On November 24, 2008, the action was removed to this court. Pembrooke

now seeks to dismiss the action on the basis of forum non conveniens, or alternatively to

transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). 

The common-law doctrine of forum non conveniens has limited application in federal

court. It applies “only in cases where the alternative forum is abroad, and perhaps in rare

Case 2:08-cv-02165-FJM Document 18 Filed 03/27/09 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 -

instances where a state or territorial court serves litigational convenience best.” Sinochem

Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430, 127 S. Ct. 1184, 1190 (2007)

(citation omitted). In a non-foreign context, the doctrine has been replaced by 28 U.S.C. §

1404(a), which provides for transfer, rather than dismissal. Because the proposed alternative

forum in the instant case is another federal district court, the doctrine of forum non

conveniens is inapplicable, and defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the

interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil matter to any other district or

division where it might have been brought.” We must weigh multiple factors in considering

whether transfer is appropriate in a particular case, including (1) plaintiff’s choice of forum,

(2) the location where the relevant agreement was negotiated and executed, (3) the parties’

respective contacts with the forum, (4) the ease of access to sources of proof, (5) the

availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses,

(6) the forum most familiar with the governing law, and (7) the difference in the costs of

litigation in the two forums. Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir.

2000). The party moving for transfer under § 1404(a) bears the burden of establishing that

transfer is appropriate and “must make a strong showing of inconvenience to warrant

upsetting the plaintiff’s choice of forum.” Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co.,

805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). 

First, though not dispositive, we will accord plaintiff’s choice of forum in Arizona

substantial weight, Pacific Car & Foundry Co. v. Pence, 403 F.2d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 1968),

particularly where, as here, the chosen forum is also plaintiff’s residence and where

significant operative facts occurred. The employment agreement with Pembrooke was

negotiated and executed by plaintiff in Arizona. She performs work on behalf of Pembrooke

from her home office in Arizona. The majority of her interaction with Pembrooke is from

Arizona by email and telephone. Although she has traveled to Virginia for training and

meetings, she claims that she has only been to Virginia once in the last three years–in order

to meet with Pembrooke personnel about her claim. Pembrooke, on the other hand, manages

Case 2:08-cv-02165-FJM Document 18 Filed 03/27/09 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

- 3 -

facilities across the United States and in other countries. Almost one third of its employees

do not work in Virginia. It advertises that it “employs Medical Review officers . . .

throughout the United States.” Talley Affidavit ¶ 36. It elected to employ plaintiff from her

home office in Arizona. The parties’ relative contacts with the forum, particularly those

contacts giving rise to this litigation, weigh strongly in favor of an Arizona forum. 

With respect to availability of witnesses, Pembrooke asserts that each of its officers

or employees likely to be called as a witness resides in Virginia. It acknowledges that most

of the potential witnesses are Pembrooke employees or officers whose testimony can be

compelled at trial. Reply at 5. Although it argues that there may be non-party witnesses

outside the subpoena power of this court, it fails to identify any such witness. Pembrooke’s

speculation that it will need compulsory process over unspecified witnesses is insufficient

to satisfy its burden. See, e.g., Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 472 F.

Supp. 2d 1183, 1193 (S. D. Cal. 2007) (“In establishing inconvenience to witnesses, the

moving party must name the witnesses, state their location, and explain their testimony and

its relevance.”).

Pembrooke also argues that the majority of the anticipated evidence is comprised of

documents related to plaintiff’s employment, including customer, commission, and payroll

records, all of which are located in Virginia. However, Pembrooke does not allege any

difficulty in transferring the documentary evidence from its Virginia office to Arizona. In

fact it acknowledges that documents can be scanned and emailed. Reply 6. Given today’s

available technology, the location of documentary evidence is entitled to less weight.

Without any specific claim regarding the inconvenience of transporting documents, this

factor does not support transfer. 

The parties’ contract provides that Virginia law governs any claim arising out of the

contract. Cametas Affidavit ¶ 17. This factor weighs only slightly in favor of transfer as this

dispute is a simple contract law action that does not involve complicated Virginia state law.

Finally, the relative financial burdens of litigating in each of the forums is neutral.

The transfer of the action to Virginia would merely shift the financial burden from

Case 2:08-cv-02165-FJM Document 18 Filed 03/27/09 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 -

Pembrooke to plaintiff. Transfer is inappropriate where it “would merely shift rather than

eliminate the inconvenience.” Decker Coal Co., 805 F.2d at 843. 

Based on a balancing of the relative factors, we conclude that Pembrooke has failed

to meet its heavy burden of showing that Virginia is the more appropriate venue for this

action.

IT IS ORDERED DENYING defendant’s motion to dismiss or alternatively to

transfer venue (doc. 7).

DATED this 27th day of March, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-02165-FJM Document 18 Filed 03/27/09 Page 4 of 4