Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00559/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00559-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KATHLEEN ELLIS,

Plaintiff,

v. NO. CIV. S-05-559 LKK/GGH

HOLLISTER, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

BRENDA DIMARO; and HALLIE LAVICK,

Plaintiffs,

v. NO. CIV. S-05-1726 LKK/GGH

HOLLISTER, INC., et al.,

O R D E R

Defendants.

 /

Defendants Hollister, Inc., Hollister Employee Share Ownership

Trust (“Plan” or “Hollishare”), John Dickinson Schneider, Inc.

(“JDS”), Samuel Brilliant, James A. Karlovsky, James McCormack, and

Richard Zwirner bring a motion to transfer venue pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the Northern District of Illinois in both

Case 2:05-cv-00559-WBS-GGH Document 103 Filed 04/14/06 Page 1 of 12
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

2

Dimaro v. Hollister and Ellis v. Hollister. Plaintiffs, Kathleen

Ellis, Brenda Dimaro and Hallie Lavick, oppose the motions. All

parties agree that both this district and the Northern District of

Illinois are proper venues for the cases. 

I. 

BACKGROUND

In both of these cases, plaintiffs allege violations of the

Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. 

§§ 1001 et seq. The allegations in both cases are similar although

in Ellis there is an additional issue regarding Qualified Domestic

Relations Orders (QDROs) issued by California courts which are

unique to the facts in that case. For a detailed discussion of the

allegations, see the accompanying order addressing the motions to

dismiss that have also been filed in these cases. 

II.

STANDARDS

Section 1404(a) of Title 28 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."

Although Congress drafted section 1404(a) in accordance with the

doctrine of forum non conveniens, it was intended to be a revision

rather than a codification of the common law. Piper Aircraft v.

Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 253 (1981); Norwood v. Kirkpatrick, 349 U.S.

29, 32 (1955). The Supreme Court has noted that section 1404(a)

transfer is available "upon a lesser showing of inconvenience" than

Case 2:05-cv-00559-WBS-GGH Document 103 Filed 04/14/06 Page 2 of 12
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

1 The Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s reasoning in denying the

motion to transfer venue. “[T]he district court made a thoughtful and thorough

analysis of the Oakland’s contention in its memorandum and order denying the

change of venue motion.” Los Angeles Mem’l Coliseum Comm. v. Nat’l Football

League,726 F.2d 1381,1399 (9th Cir. 1984)(emphasis added). 

3

that required for a forum non conveniens dismissal. Norwood, 349

U.S. at 32. 

The district court has broad discretion "to adjudicate motions

for transfer according to an 'individualized, case-by-case

consideration of convenience and fairness.'" Jones v. GNC

Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2000)(quoting Stewart

Org. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 30 (1988)); See also Westinghouse

Elec. Corp. v. Weigel, 426 F.2d 1356, 1358 (9th Cir. 1970). The

burden is upon the moving party, however, to show that transfer is

appropriate. Commodity Futures Trading Commiss’n v. Savage, 611

F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979). See also Los Angeles Memorial

Coliseum Comm. v. National Football League, 89 F.R.D. 497, 499

(C.D. Cal. 1981) aff’d, 726 F.2d 1381, 1399 (9th Cir. 1984).1 

Generally, the court affords plaintiff’s choice of forum great

weight. Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987)

cert. denied, 485 U.S. 993 (1988). However, when judging the

weight to be given to plaintiff’s choice of forum, consideration

must be given to the respective parties’ contact with the chosen

forum. Id. “If the operative facts have not occurred within the

forum and the forum has no interest in the parties or subject

matter,” plaintiff’s choice “is entitled only minimal

consideration.” Id. Moreover, when a plaintiff brings a

Case 2:05-cv-00559-WBS-GGH Document 103 Filed 04/14/06 Page 3 of 12
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

2 The Supreme Court stated that [s]ection 1404(a) directs a district

court to “weigh in the balance of the convenience of the witnesses and those

public-interest factors of systemic integrity and fairness that, in addition to

private concerns, come under the heading of ‘the interest of justice.’” Stewart

Org. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 30 (1988).

4

derivative suit or represents a class, the named plaintiff’s choice

of forum is given less weight. Id. 

Section 1404(a) provides for transfer to a more convenient

forum, not to a forum likely to be equally convenient or

inconvenient. Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 646 (1964). As

part of this inquiry, the Ninth Circuit has held that even though

section 1404(a) “partially displaces the common law doctrine of

forum non conveniens,” nonetheless, forum non conveniens

considerations are helpful in deciding a § 1404(a) motion. Decker

Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison, 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986).

With this in mind, the district court should consider both private

and public interest factors affecting the convenience of the forum.

Decker, 805 F.2d at 843 (citing Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454

U.S. 235, 241 (1981)); See also Stewart Org., 487 U.S. at 30.2

Private factors include:

"relative ease of access to sources of proof;

availability of compulsory process for attendance of

unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of

willing, witnesses; possibility of view of premises, if

view would be appropriate to the action; and all other

practical problems that make trial of a case easy,

expeditious and inexpensive." 

Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508, (1947).

Public factors include: 

"the administrative difficulties flowing from court

congestion; the 'local interest in having localized

Case 2:05-cv-00559-WBS-GGH Document 103 Filed 04/14/06 Page 4 of 12
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

5

controversies decided at home'; the interest in having

the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home

with the law that must govern the action; the avoidance

of unnecessary problems in conflict of laws, or in the

application of foreign law; and the unfairness of

burdening citizens in an unrelated forum with jury

duty." 

Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 241 n.6 (quoting Gulf Oil Corp., 330

U.S. at 509).

In sum, "[t]he basic factors to be considered then, in

determining whether, on balance, a transfer to a different forum

would allow a case to proceed more conveniently and better serve

the interests of justice, are: (1) the plaintiff's choice of

forum; (2) the convenience of the parties; (3) the convenience of

the witnesses; and (4) the interests of justice." Los Angeles

Mem’l Coliseum Comm., 89 F.R.D. at 499.

III.

ANALYSIS

A. MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE IN ELLIS

The court has previously addressed a nearly identical motion

brought by the same defendants in DeFazio v. Hollister Employee

Share Ownership Trust, et. al., No. Civ. S-04-1358, Order filed

Feb. 24, 2005. The plaintiff in DeFazio is the former husband of

Kathleen Ellis who acquired a community property share of Ellis’

vested benefits with the plan currently in question during divorce

proceedings. In a motion to transfer venue brought by the

defendants in DeFazio, the court found that plaintiff’s choice of

venue should be given primacy. There is nothing to distinguish the

two cases here, the plaintiff in DeFazio ultimately derived his

Case 2:05-cv-00559-WBS-GGH Document 103 Filed 04/14/06 Page 5 of 12
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

6

connection with this District from his relationship with Ellis.

See Id. at 7.

In addition, these cases have now been related and it is clear

that there is thus even less reason to transfer this case to

Illinois, as doing so may result in inconsistent decisions as the

facts and law at issue are very similar. Further highlighting this

point is the fact that there is also a third case (discussed

below), Dimaro v. Hollister, that has also been related in this

district. Case No. Civ. S-05-1726. Therefore, rather than

rehashing explanations already well-known to defendants, the court

refers them to the order issued in DeFazio which denied their

request for a change of venue. 

B. MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE IN DIMARO

1. Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum

Generally, the Ninth Circuit gives this factor great weight,

however certain conditions in a case may militate against such

treatment. Louf v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d at 739. A plaintiff's

choice of forum is also accorded particular deference in ERISA

cases. Jacobson v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 105 F.3d 1288, 1302, rev'd

and remanded on other grounds, Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525

U.S. 432 (1999). This weight, though, may be diminished when the

plaintiff “brings a derivative suit, represents a class,” or the

operative facts do not occur in the chosen forum. Id.

Defendants argue that because the plaintiffs’ claim could have

been brought by any of the other "Hollishare plan participants in

their home state," the plaintiffs’ choice "is entitled no

Case 2:05-cv-00559-WBS-GGH Document 103 Filed 04/14/06 Page 6 of 12
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

7

deference." Defs.' Mot. at 10. Defendants support their claim by

citing Koster v. American Lumberman's Mutual Casualty Co., where

the Supreme Court determined the plaintiff's choice of forum

carried less weight in a derivative action. 330 U.S. 518, 524-25

(1947). In Koster, the High Court acknowledged that when there are

"hundreds of potential plaintiffs, all equally entitled voluntarily

to invest themselves with the corporation's cause of action. . ."

the plaintiff's claim to home forum is weakened. Plaintiffs here

are asserting their rights along with those of all other plan

participants in that they seek to restore “all accounts to the

their proper value” and are seeking to recoup the lost assets and

any profits made by JDS for the plan as a whole. Pls.’ Compl. at

6-7. Koster thus appears to be analogous. However, it is not

apparent why the fact that there are persons that could potentially

be affected by the outcome of this suit elsewhere means that this

suit should be transferred to Illinois. Those other persons have

not brought suit and thus it is the present plaintiffs’ choice that

seems to be relevant. Furthermore, the only other plaintiffs that

have brought suit have brought suit in this very district. 

It appears that plaintiffs chose this district based on the

fact that their attorney practices here. Plaintiffs point out that

the residence of the plaintiff is not a relevant factor in

determining jurisdiction, but they cannot deny that it plays a role

in determining “the convenience of parties and witnesses” as

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Unlike in Ellis and DeFazio, none

of the operative facts in this case occurred in this District. 

Case 2:05-cv-00559-WBS-GGH Document 103 Filed 04/14/06 Page 7 of 12
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

8

2. Convenience of the Parties

This case is brought by two plaintiffs, one who lives in

Colorado and the other in Georgia against over ten separate

defendants, most of which are located in Illinois. Defendants

argue that Illinois is a more convenient forum because most of the

defendants reside there, JDS and Hollister are Illinois

corporations, and the Hollishare plan is administered from the

Libertyville headquarters. Plaintiffs respond that their attorney

is based in the district and he has considerable knowledge about

the facts and circumstances of the case. They claim that the

participants would lose their counsel since he is not licenced to

practice in Illinois. While Mr. Hubbard may be able to obtain pro

hac vice admission to practice in Illinois, a considerable burden

will still remain. Transferring this action to Illinois may be

burdensome and costly for plaintiffs because it will cause their

attorney to have to travel (or possibly may require them to obtain

new counsel if possible). “In weighing the convenience of the

parties, the court may take into account the physical condition and

the financial strength of each of them." Wright, Miller & Cooper,

Federal Practice and Procedure 2d § 3849, at 408; Jones, 211 F.3d

at 499 (courts may look at the costs of litigation in the two

forums). From all that appears, defendants have more resources

available to defend the case in California than plaintiffs would

in Illinois. Moreover, given that defendants are already

litigating two similar cases in this District, the added burden on

defending here is only incremental. 

Case 2:05-cv-00559-WBS-GGH Document 103 Filed 04/14/06 Page 8 of 12
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

9

From a purely geographical view, Illinois might well be the

better forum in terms of the proximity to the largest number of

parties, the location of most of the potential witnesses, and the

location of most of the relevant documents. The burden that this

transfer would have on plaintiffs, however, is considerable. The

court concludes that this factor probably is of equal weight.

3. Convenience of the Witnesses

The convenience of witnesses is thought to be one of the most

important factors in a transfer motion. Wright, Miller & Cooper,

Federal Practice and Procedure 2d § 3851, at 415; Los Angeles Mem’l

Coliseum, 89 F.R.D. at 501. In assessing this factor, “courts

consider the effect of a transfer on the availability of certain

witnesses, and their live testimony, at trial.” Los Angeles Mem’l

Coliseum 89 F.R.D. at 501. If possible, courts prefer live

testimony where there are vital issues of fact hinge of

credibility. Id. 

Defendants claim that many witnesses will be beyond the

court’s subpoena power if the suit remains in this district. 

Defendants cite Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 in support of

this claim. Rule 45 states in relevant part that “the court by

which a subpoena was issued shall quash or modify the subpoena if

it . . . requires a person who is not a party or an officer of a

party to travel to a place more than 100 miles from the place where

that person resides . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. R. 45C(3)(A)(ii). 

Rule 45 does not apply, however, to party witnesses and many of the

crucial witnesses named by the defendants are all parties to the

Case 2:05-cv-00559-WBS-GGH Document 103 Filed 04/14/06 Page 9 of 12
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

10

suit and would be required to appear to testify regardless of

whether a subpoena is issued. Defendants do claim that there are

other personnel connected to the Hollishare Trustees that may be

called as witnesses (members of the Hollister human resources and

financial staff as well as the Secretary to the HolliShare

Trustees) and they might truly be outside the subpoena power of the

court. Of course, given their employment, this does not appear to

represent a real difficulty. Nonetheless, while most of the key

witnesses may be within the subpoena power of the court, it is

likely to be inconvenient for virtually all of the witnesses

(subpoenable or not) to travel to California to testify in this

case. Even though they mistake the scope of Rule 45, this factor

does weigh in favor of defendants. 

4. Interest of Justice

Defendants also argue that transferring the case to Illinois

would serve the interests of justice. They assert that this

transfer is necessary because the Hollishare Plan is a product of

Illinois state law and so the Northern District of Illinois is

better situated to resolve the state law claims. This would be a

convincing argument if this were a diversity jurisdiction matter,

requiring the interpretation and application of unfamiliar

substantive state law. Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice

and Procedure 2d § 3854, at 467-68. Under those circumstances, the

interests of justice might suggest transfer to a court sitting in

the state affected by an out-of-state court’s interpretation of

state law. See Van Dusen, 376 U.S. at 625-26 (when there is a

Case 2:05-cv-00559-WBS-GGH Document 103 Filed 04/14/06 Page 10 of 12
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

11

difference in substantive state law, it is “necessary to consider

what bearing a change of venue, if accompanied by a change in state

law, would have on 'the interest of justice.’”) 

The interest of having a state court interpret state law is

not at issue when, as here, the dispute requires interpretation of

federal law, and when the suit is predicated upon the

interpretation of federal statute, ERISA, which preempts any state

law. Under ERISA, except as otherwise provided the provisions of

ERISA “supersede any and all State laws insofar as they may now or

hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan described in section

4(a) [29 USCS § 1003(a)] and not exempt under section 4(b) [29 USCS

§ 1003(b)].” 29 U.S.C. § 1144. 

The fact that this case has now been related to DeFazio and

Ellis weighs heavily against defendants’ motion. Although

plaintiffs’ case will vary due to the individual circumstances of

each plaintiff, the general questions raised appear to be the same

and will likely involve the same level of discovery, etcetera. 

Although some of the claims were dismissed in DeFazio, they remain

in Ellis. 

5. Ease of Access to Proof

Once again, the fact that virtually all of the relevant

documents and witnesses are located in Illinois seems to weigh in

favor of transfer. While plaintiffs argue that there is no reason

why documents or records located there could not be copied by

“Team-Xerox,” that does not obviate the need to have ready access

to the originals. The burden, however, will be on plaintiffs to

Case 2:05-cv-00559-WBS-GGH Document 103 Filed 04/14/06 Page 11 of 12
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

12

retrieve the documents (or go view them in their home) and/or to

pay for their copying and shipment and thus this factor does not

have a lot of weight either way. This argument is again less

convincing in light of the fact that defendants will be litigating

two cases using similar facts and documents here in California. 

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Ultimately, the fact that Ellis and DeFazio must be tried here

compels this court to deny the motion for Dimaro. Although the

nucleus of Dimaro is in Illinois, it just makes more sense to have

all three of these cases heard in the same district by the same

judge. Judicial resources are scarce and there is no need to

burden a second district with these cases. Additionally, there is

no need to expose the parties to the risk of inconsistent decisions

when the facts are so similar. Since the defendants will be

litigating the other two cases here, the burden will not be that

much greater on them. 

The motions to transfer venue are DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 13, 2006

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:05-cv-00559-WBS-GGH Document 103 Filed 04/14/06 Page 12 of 12