Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04321/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04321-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

J. STEVEN WILEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

TRENDWEST RESORTS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-4321 SBA

ORDER

[Docket Nos. 30, 31]

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Trendwest Resorts, Inc.'s Motion to Transfer Venue and

Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Having read and considered the arguments presented by the parties

in the papers submitted to the Court, the Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without a hearing.

The Court hereby GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue [Docket No. 30] and DENIES AS

PREMATURE Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification [Docket No. 31].

BACKGROUND

I. The Parties

Defendant Trendwest Resorts, Inc. ("Defendant" or "Trendwest") is an Oregon corporation. Compl.

¶ 2. Trendwest's principal place of business is in Redmond, Washington. Id. Defendant Jeld-Wen, Inc.

("Jeld-Wen") is a privately held Oregon corporation with its principal place of business in Oregon. Compl. ¶

Case 4:04-cv-04321-SBA Document 54 Filed 08/10/05 Page 1 of 10
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 1Ronnie Williams is a former employee of Trendwest’s Las Vegas office. Errata at Ex. A, ¶ 7. 

2

3. Jeld-Wen is Trendwest's majority shareholder, holding 80.1 percent of Trendwest's shares, and is in charge

of Trendwest's payroll and employment policies. Id.

Plaintiffs Steven Wiley, James D. Harrison, and Fred Dineley ("Plaintiffs") are or were employed by

Trendwest in California as inside sales employees paid on a commission-only basis with chargebacks against

commission. Id. at ¶¶ 4, 16. Plaintiffs allege that while employed by Trendwest, they were forced to work

more than forty hours per week, were charged back wages, and were denied their annual bonuses. Id. at ¶¶

20-22.

II. Procedural History of this Action

On August 25, 2004, Plaintiffs filed a class-action complaint in SanFrancisco SuperiorCourt on behalf

of themselves and on behalf of all other Trendwest sales personnel employed within the state of California

(referred to herein as the "California action" or the "California Complaint"). Compl. ¶ 7. On October 13,

2004, Trendwest removed the case to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Defendant premised the

removal on the ground that two of Plaintiffs’ causes of action, which were brought under California Business

and Professions Code § 17200 and California Labor Code § 203, respectively, actually invoked a federal

question under the federalFair Labor Standards Act(“FLSA”) [Docket No. 1]. In its Order ofMay 3, 2005,

this Court agreed that the first and fifth causes of action invoked a federal question and that jurisdiction over

those two claims was proper [Docket No. 23]. However, after finding that the second through fourth causes

of action raised novel questions of California state law and asserted legal theories independent from the first

and fifth causes of action, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the second through

fourth causes of action and remanded those claims to San Francisco Superior Court [Docket No. 23]. 

On June 27, 2005, Trendwest filed the instant Motion to Transfer Venue. No discovery beyond initial

Rule 26 disclosures has yet taken place in this case. However, on June 28, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for

Class Certification. 

III. Procedural History of the Nevada Action

On April 19, 2005, Plaintiffs’ attorney, Mark Thierman, filed a class-action complaint on behalf of

Ronnie Williams1("Williams") against Trendwest in the Clark County District Court of Nevada (the "Nevada

Case 4:04-cv-04321-SBA Document 54 Filed 08/10/05 Page 2 of 10
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

3

Action" or the "Nevada Complaint"). Notice of Errata at Ex. A. The Nevada Complaint is brought on behalf

of Williams and "all salespersons who worked for Trendwest in any state other than California within the last

three (3) years." Id. at ¶ 13. The Nevada Complaint alleges three claims, one for a nationwide (except

California) class under the Fair Labor Standards Act and two additional claims specific to a sub-class of

Nevada Trendwest employees under Nevada state laborlaw. Id. at ¶¶ 13-14. On May 13, 2005, Trendwest

removed the action to the DistrictCourt ofNevada based on federalquestion and diversity jurisdiction. Notice

of Errata at Ex. B.

LEGAL STANDARD

Venue is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Section 1404(a) provides that "[f]orthe 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 the action might have been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The purpose of the

section is to "prevent the waste of 'time, energy and money' and to 'protect litigants, witnesses, and the public

against unnecessary inconvenience and expense.'" VanDusenv. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964) (quoting

Continental Grain Co. v. Barge FBL-585, 364 U.S. 19, 26-27 (1960)). 

The burden is on the moving party to demonstrate that the balance of conveniences favors the transfer.

Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979). Generally, the

moving party "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. 1985), and "a

plaintiff's choice of forum is ordinarily given great weight." Allegiance Healthcare Corp. v. London Int'l

Group, PLC, 1998 WL 328624, * 1 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (citing Grubs v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc.,

189 F. Supp. 404, 409 (D. Mont. 1960)). However, the plaintiff’s choice of forum receives less deference

when the plaintiff brings a purported class action. Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987). 

To support a motion for transfer, the moving party must establish: (1) that venue is proper in the

transferee district;(2) that the transferee district is one where the actionmight have been brought; and (3) that

the transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and will promote the interests of justice.

See Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 820 F. Supp. 503, 506 (C.D. Cal. 1992).

A motion to transfer lies within the broad discretion of the district court, and must be determined on an

Case 4:04-cv-04321-SBA Document 54 Filed 08/10/05 Page 3 of 10
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

2Although the parties are silent with respect to Jeld-Wen, the California Complaint alleges that JeldWen is Trendwest's majority shareholder and is in charge of Trendwest's payroll and employment policies.

Compl. at ¶ 3. Thus, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Court findsthat the jurisdictionanalysis

is the same for both Jeld-Wen and Trendwest. 

4

individualized basis. See Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000). 

In determining the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice, a Court may

consider a number offactors including:(1) the plaintiff's choice offorum; (2) the convenience ofthe parties; (3)

the convenience of the witnesses; (4) ease of access to the evidence; (5) familiarity of each forum with the

applicable law; (6) feasibility of consolidation of other claims; (7) any localinterest in the controversy; and (8)

the relative court congestion and time of trial in each forum. Jones, 211 F.3d at 498-99.

ANALYSIS

I. Jurisdiction and Venue in Transferee Court

On a motion to transfer, the moving party must first show that the transferee court has complete

personaljurisdictionover the defendants, subjectmatter jurisdictionover the claims, and proper venue had the

claim originally been brought in that court. Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 344 (1960). 

Here, there is no dispute that the California action might have been properly brought in the District of

Nevada. The District Court of Nevada has personal jurisdiction over Trendwest because Trendwest does

businessinNevada.2 Further, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c), venue is proper for corporations in any district

in which a court has personaljurisdictionover that corporation. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). Last, the District Court

of Nevada would have subject matter jurisdiction over the California action, as the remaining claims in the

California action involve a federal question. Accordingly, the Court next considers whether the convenience

and justice factors support a finding that venue should be transferred.

II. Convenience and Justice Factors

Trendwest contends that the interests of convenience and justice weigh heavily in favor of a finding that

the California action should be transferred to Nevada. Specifically, Trendwest argues that Section 1404 was

designed to prevent the precise situationpresented here, where two cases involving the exact same legal issue

are pending in different jurisdictions. See Continental Grain Co., 364 U.S. at 26. Further, Trendwest

stresses that the instant Motion to Transfer Venue is intended to avoid the substantialduplication of effort and

Case 4:04-cv-04321-SBA Document 54 Filed 08/10/05 Page 4 of 10
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

5

resources that would necessarily result from simultaneously defending against two class actions pending in

different jurisdictions. Trendwest also points out that the current division between the California putative class

and the nationwide putative class is artificial and unnecessary, and that the sole reason it is seeking to transfer

the California action to Nevada is so that it may move to consolidate the two actions into one nationwide class

action. 

A. Interests of Justice

The first factor that this Court must evaluate is whether the instant Motion to Transfer Venue serves

the interests of justice. "The 'interests of justice' consideration is the most important factor a court must

consider, and may be decisive in a transfer motion even when all other factors point the other way." London

and Hull Mar. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Eagle Pac. Ins. Co., 1996 WL 479013, * 3 (N. D. Cal. 1996). A major

consideration under this factor is the desire to avoid multiplicity of litigation from a single transaction. Id. In

evaluating the "interests of justice," the pendency ofrelated actions in the proposed transferee forum is a highly

persuasive factor. A.J. Industries,Inc. v.United States Dist.Court for Cent. Dist., 503 F.2d 384, 389 (9th

Cir. 1974). The feasibility of consolidation is also a significant factor in a transfer decision. Id. “Litigation of

related claims in the same tribunalis strongly favored because it facilitates efficient, economicaland expeditious

pre-trial proceedings and discovery and avoids duplicitous [sic] litigation and inconsistent results.” Durham

Productions, Inc. v. Sterling Film Portfolio, Ltd., Series A, 537 F. Supp. 1241, 1243 (S.D.N.Y. 1982).

Trendwest first argues that transferring the California action to Nevada will allow forthe possibility of

consolidation, which will substantially reduce duplicative discovery and will conserve judicial resources. As

noted above, there are two class actions currently pending against Trendwest: the California action and the

Nevada action. Both complaints were drafted by, and filed by, the same attorney, Mark Thierman. With the

exception of the state law causes of action, the California Complaint and the Nevada Complaint are virtually

identicalinallmaterialrespects; infact,the allegations supporting the California Complaint's § 17200 claim have

been reproduced verbatim in the Nevada Complaint as the underlying allegations supporting the Fair Labor

Case 4:04-cv-04321-SBA Document 54 Filed 08/10/05 Page 5 of 10
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

3

Indeed, in the May 3, 2005 Order on Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand, this Court determined that

Plaintiffs' § 17200 claim was actually premised on the Fair Labor Standards Act. 

6

Standards Act claim.3 In fact, now that the California state law claims have been dismissed from the instant

action, the California action is entirely duplicative of the Nevada action, with the sole exception being the

artificial carve-out for the California sub-class. In fact, in both actions, the putative class members are

represented by the same law firm, the cases arise out of the exact same set of operative facts, and each

presents the same federal question. Further, Plaintiffs do not deny that the discovery sought from Trendwest

will be identical in both actions. Accordingly, Trendwest has presented a compelling case for the transfer of

the California action, and subsequent consolidation of the two actions. 

Moreover, consolidating the two actions into one actionwould eliminate the possibility of inconsistent

rulings. The sole remaining legal issue in the California action is whether Trendwest is a "retail or service"

establishment within the meaning ofthe FLSA. This is the same federal issue presented in the Nevada action.

Because this issue is an issue of first impression in the Ninth Circuit, there is a realistic danger that Trendwest

may be subjected to inconsistent judgments if the two class actions are allowed to proceed in separate

jurisdictions. Since consolidation cannot occur until both actions are pending in the same jurisdiction, this factor

weighs heavily in favor of granting the instant Motion to Transfer Venue. 

Additionally, the fact that the California action no longer contains any California state law claims also

weighs heavily in favor of transferring the California action to Nevada, instead of the other way around.

Although the fact that the Nevada action includes certain claims arising under Nevada law does not preclude

transfer to this Court, as Trendwest erroneously contends, the forum state's familiarity with its own laws is a

factorthat a court may consider on a motion to transfer. See Jones, 211 F.3d at 498-99. Hence, if Trendwest

were to file the same Motion to Transfer Venue in Nevada, this factor would weigh against transfer and could

thwart Trendwest's effort to consolidate the two actions. In fact, transferring the Nevada action to California

would be less appropriate, as it would require this Court to interpret numerous Nevada statutes, including

Nevada Revised Statute ("N.R.S.") §§ 608.016, 608.100, 608.250, 608.019, and 608.040, with which this

Court is unfamiliar. In contrast, transferring the California action to Nevada only requires the Nevada District

Court to take on two causes of action that are wholly dependent on the Fair Labor Standards Act and are

Case 4:04-cv-04321-SBA Document 54 Filed 08/10/05 Page 6 of 10
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

4For example, the California Complaint and Nevada Complaint both allege violations of 29 U.S.C. §

207(a)(1), the section of the FLSA regarding forty-hour work weeks, and seek to recover overtime pay for

the class of salespersons who have allegedly been forced to work in violation of the forty-hour rule. Compl.

¶ 27, Errata at Ex. A, ¶ 25. Further, both complaints allege thatTrendwest does notfall within the exemption

for “retail or service establishments.” Compl. at ¶¶ 24-31; Errata at Ex. A, ¶¶ 24-31. 

7

entirely duplicative of the federal cause of action already contained in the Nevada Complaint.4 

Finally, Plaintiffs' argument that the Motion to Transfer Venue should not be granted merely because

the California action is the "first-filed"action is unpersuasive. The "first-filed" rule merely "allows a district court

to transfer, stay, or dismiss an action when a similar complaint has already been filed in another federal court."

Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Products, Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 623 (9th Cir. 1991). As such, it is an argument that

should be presented to the Nevada court, not this Court. Further, the "first-filed" rule is typically invoked to

protect the plaintiff's choice of forum in cases where the defendant has subsequently filed an identical or

related suit in a different forum. See, e.g., Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc., 989 F.2d

1002, 1004 (8th Cir. 1993). Plaintiffs have not provided the Court with any authority in support of their belief

that the "first-filed" rule may be extended to a case, such as the one here, where a defendant is subjected to

two different class actions that the plaintiff has filed in two different jurisdictions. In fact, to the contrary, the

Ninth Circuit has held that the "first-filed" rule, evenwhen applicable, is not to be rigidly enforced, and should

be dispensed with when principles of equity so require. Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 628. Since equity weighs in

favor of allowing Trendwest the opportunity to consolidate the two actions so that it may defend against a class

action comprised of its entire sales force, the Court finds that the "first-filed" rule does not bar transfer of the

California action to the Nevada District Court. 

Case 4:04-cv-04321-SBA Document 54 Filed 08/10/05 Page 7 of 10
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

8

B. Convenience Factors

As set forth below, Trendwest has also persuasively established that the remaining applicable Jones

factors are either neutral or weigh in favor of transfer. 

1. Plaintiffs’ Choice of Forum

The first Jones factor to be considered is Plaintiffs' choice of forum. Ordinarily, there is a strong

presumptioninfavorofthe plaintiffs' choice offorum. Jarvis v. MariettaCor., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12659

(N.D. Cal. 1999). However, the plaintiffs' choice of forum is given less deference where, as here, the action

is brought on behalf of a class. Lou, 834 F.2d at 739. Further, "[i]f there is any indication that plaintiff's choice

of forum is the result of forum shopping, plaintiff's choice will be accorded little deference.” Williams v.

Bowman, 157 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 1106 (N.D. Cal. 2001).

As previously noted, the plaintiffs in the California and Nevada actions share the same counsel, Mark

Thierman. Plaintiffs' counsel originally chose to limit the putative class to Trendwest’s California salespersons.

Subsequently, instead of amending the California Complaint, Plaintiff's counselfiled a second action in Nevada

to litigate on behalf of the rest of Trendwest's salespersons. While this chain of procedural events does not

conclusively establish thatPlaintiffs have engaged in forum shopping, significantly, Plaintiffs have not provided

the Court with any persuasive reasons as to why the class has been artificially split into two sub-classes, the

California salespersons and the non-California "nationwide" sub-class. Given this, and given the fact that this

case involves class action litigation, the Court findsthat Plaintiffs' choice offorum is entitled to very little weight.

2. Convenience of Parties and Witnesses and Access to Evidence

Additionally, the Court may consider whether the transferee court would be more convenient for the

parties and witnesses and whether the transferee court would provide the parties with easier access to

evidence. Since a nationwide class action litigation is at issue here, this factor is presumably neutral.

Specifically, considering thatTrendwest's principalplace ofbusinessisinWashington, and Jeld-Wen's principal

place of business is in Oregon, both Oakland and Las Vegas are equally inconvenient places to litigate for the

defendants. As for the plaintiffs, the putative California class and the putative Nevada class are both alleged

to be over one hundred strong. Id. ¶ 13; Errata at Ex. A, ¶ 15. The nationwide putative class, however, is

alleged to consist of over four hundred persons who do not reside in either California or Nevada. 

Case 4:04-cv-04321-SBA Document 54 Filed 08/10/05 Page 8 of 10
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

5

In the event that this matter is transferred to the District Court of Nevada, Trendwest has agreed to

depose Plaintiffs’ primary witnesses in California, to ease any burden on them. Reply at 5. 

9

As for the witnesses, both parties agree that most of the witnesses live and work in Redmond,

Washington, and hence, again, neither forum is convenient for them. However, Defendants note that the

convenience ofthe witnesses will be best served if Defendants are allowed to defend against both cases in one

venue, thus avoiding the necessity of duplicative depositions.5 Id. 

With respect to the evidence, the parties also agree that most of the relevant evidence is located at

Trendwest's headquarters in Redmond, Washington. Opp’n at 4; Mot. at 8. However, additional evidence

will also originate from the individual Trendwest employment sites such as California and other locations

throughout the country. Mot. at 8. Accordingly, there is no single location that would provide the easiest

access to all of the relevant evidence.

In sum, the Jones "convenience" factors do not appear to provide overwhelming support for transfer

of the California action to Nevada. However, there is one critical factor that the parties do not mention that

tips the scales in favor of transferring the California action to Nevada: Plaintiffs' counsel is located in Nevada.

Thus, due to Plaintiffs' counsel's proximity to the Nevada court, a significant amount oftime and expense would

undeniably be eliminated if the California action is transferred to that jurisdiction. 

III. Balancing the Factors

The interests ofjustice strongly weigh in favor ofgranting the instant Motion to Transfer Venue in order

to allow Trendwest the opportunity to consolidate the two class actions into one action. Moreover, transferring

the California action would avoid unnecessary duplication of labor and would conserve scarce judicial

resources. Accordingly, this Court hereby GRANTS Trendwest's Motion to Transfer Venue.

CONCLUSION

In the interest of preserving the litigants' and the judicial system's resources, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED THAT Defendant Trendwest Resort Inc.'s Motion to Transfer Venue [Docket No. 30] is

GRANTED. This matter is hereby ordered TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the

District of Nevada. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification [Docket No. 31] is

Case 4:04-cv-04321-SBA Document 54 Filed 08/10/05 Page 9 of 10
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

10

DENIED AS PREMATURE. The Motion for Class Certification should be re-filed in the transferee court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

Dated: 8-9-05 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-04321-SBA Document 54 Filed 08/10/05 Page 10 of 10