Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04551/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04551-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

LEITH PATRICK KNAPP, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

WACHOVIA CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-4551 SI

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE AND

TRANSFERRING CASE TO EASTERN

DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Defendants’ motion to transfer venue is scheduled for a hearing on May 16, 2008. Pursuant to

Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that the matter is appropriate for resolution without oral

argument, and VACATES the hearing. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the motion

and TRANSFERS this case to the Eastern District of California.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs are two men who are domestic partners and who both formerly worked for defendant

Wachovia SBA Lending Inc., in Roseville, California. Roseville is located in the Eastern District of

California. Plaintiffs allege that their supervisors and co-workers discriminated against them and

harassed them on account of their sexual orientation and disability, and that after they complained, they

were retaliated against and ultimately constructively discharged. The complaint alleges, inter alia, that

plaintiffs were ostracized and harassed in the workplace, received unfair negative performance reviews,

and that they were harassed at work-related social events.

Plaintiffs filed suit in the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs allege claims under the

Americans with Disabilities Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the California Labor

Case 3:07-cv-04551-SI Document 35 Filed 05/12/08 Page 1 of 4
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

2

Code, the California Civil Code, the California Business and Professions Code, and common law.

Plaintiffs originally sued Wachovia Corporation, Wachovia SBA Lending, Inc., and two Wachovia

employees, Kenneth McGuire and Ann Nonemaker. In response to defendants’ motion to transfer

venue, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the individual defendants. The corporate defendants continue

to seek transfer of this case to the Eastern District of California on the ground that the alleged events

giving rise to plaintiffs’ claims occurred in the Eastern District and a majority of the witnesses are

located in the Eastern District.

LEGAL STANDARD

“For 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.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1404(a). The purpose of § 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 citations and quotation omitted). A motion for transfer lies

within the broad discretion of the district court, and must be determined on an individualized basis. See

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

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

transferor district; (2) that the transferee district is one where the action might 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). Transfer is discretionary, but is governed by certain factors specified in § 1404(a)

and in relevant case law.

DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, the Court finds that venue would be proper in either district, and the parties

Case 3:07-cv-04551-SI Document 35 Filed 05/12/08 Page 2 of 4
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

1

 Prior to plaintiffs’ dismissal of the individual defendants, defendants contended that venue was

improper in this District. After dismissal of those defendants, the Wachovia defendants no longer

contend that venue is improper in this District.

2

 The complaint also alleges that some discriminatory and/or harassing events took place outside

of California.

3

do not dispute that fact.1

 Once venue is determined to be proper in both districts, courts evaluate the

following factors to determine which venue is more convenient to the parties and the witnesses: (1)

plaintiff’s choice of forum, (2) convenience of the parties, (3) convenience of the witnesses, (4) ease of

access to the evidence, (5) familiarity of each forum with the applicable law, (6) feasibility of

consolidation with other claims, (7) any local interest in the controversy, and (8) the relative court

congestion and time of trial in each forum. See Williams v. Bowman, 157 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 1106 (N.D.

Cal. 2001). 

The Court finds that, on balance, these factors favor transfer. Although courts should afford

considerable weight to a plaintiff’s choice in determining a motion to transfer, see Securities Investor

Protection Corp. v. Vigman, 764 F.2d 1309, 1317 (9th Cir. 1985), a plaintiff’s choice of forum is not

dispositive, and must be balanced against other factors of convenience. For example, where the

transactions giving rise to the action lack a significant connection to the plaintiff’s chosen forum, the

plaintiff’s choice of forum is given considerably less weight, even if the plaintiff is a resident of the

forum. See Schwarzer, Tashima & Wagstaffe, Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial § 4:763 (2007); see

also Schmidt v. American Inst. of Physics, 322 F. Supp. 2d 28, 33 (D.D.C. 2004). 

Here, all of the alleged events giving rise to plaintiffs’ claims occurred outside the Northern

District, and most occurred in the Eastern District at the Roseville worksite.2

 Plaintiffs make much of

the fact that they complained to Wachovia’s human resources department in Oakland, and they allege

that the human resources department did not adequately investigate their complaint. However, the

gravamen of plaintiffs’ claims concerns events that allegedly took place at the Roseville worksite. In

addition, although plaintiffs have submitted declarations stating that they had clients in the Northern

District, plaintiffs’ claims do not stem from their interactions with these clients. Finally, although

plaintiffs highlight the fact that they filed their administrative complaints with the EEOC and the DFEH

in the Northern District, this fact has no bearing on the venue analysis. 

Case 3:07-cv-04551-SI Document 35 Filed 05/12/08 Page 3 of 4
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

4

The Court also finds that transfer will be significantly more convenient for the witnesses.

Defendants have identified eleven witnesses mentioned in the complaint who are located in the Eastern

District. These witnesses include former defendant McGuire, who is referenced repeatedly throughout

the complaint, as well as plaintiffs’ former co-workers who allegedly discriminated against and harassed

plaintiffs. Although plaintiffs suggest that these witnesses are not relevant or necessary, that assertion

is belied by the allegations of the complaint. Moreover, plaintiffs have submitted declarations stating

that they have residences in both the Northern and Eastern Districts, and thus although plaintiffs would

prefer to litigate in the Northern District, it is not a hardship for plaintiffs to pursue this action in the

Eastern District. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS defendants’ motion

to transfer venue and TRANSFERS this case to the Eastern District of California. (Docket No. 13). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2008 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-04551-SI Document 35 Filed 05/12/08 Page 4 of 4