Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00719/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00719-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Fair Labor Standards

---

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

 CASE NO. 07CV0719 BEN (WMC)

-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RENEE CESAR VILCHES MORA, on behalf

of himself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota

corporation, and DOES 1 through 125,

Inclusive,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 07CV0719 BEN (WMC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

TRANSFER VENUE [D.E. 8]

Plaintiffs filed a wage and hour class action by hourly employees against Target

Corporation (“Target”) based on its company policies and practices. Presently before the Court

is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Transfer Venue (“Motion”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404(a). Defendants

oppose the Motion. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED.

“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).” However, the moving party bears the burden of showing that a transfer

will serve the “convenience of parties and witnesses and interests of justice.” Commodity

Futures Trading Comm’n v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979). That burden has not

Case 3:07-cv-00719-MMA-WMC Document 32 Filed 09/14/07 Page 1 of 2
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

 See Burger v. Target Corp., Case No. 07CV1052 MMC (ND.Cal.).

2 See Wong v. Target Corp., Case No. 06CV05398 WDB (ND Cal.).

 CASE NO. 07CV0719 BEN (WMC)

-2-

been met here. Plaintiff Renee Cesar Vilches Mora, as representative of the purported class is a

San Diego resident. Plaintiff Mora seeks to transfer this action from San Diego, his place of

employment with Target, where the witnesses and documents pertinent to his claims are located,

and where he specifically chose to sue Target, to the Northern District of California, a venue

more than 500 miles away that has no connection to plaintiff or his claims. 

Plaintiff Mora argues on behalf of the purported class that transfer is warranted because

“there are two actions against Target pending in the Northern District of California on behalf of

the identical putative class of hourly California employees suing here.” Pl. Mot. To Transfer at

5. Plaintiff Mora further argues that one of the cases1

 “alleges the identical uniform expense

violation asserted in this case.” Id. This factor is no longer persuasive in light of the recent

dismissal in that case on August 24, 2007. The remaining case2 relied on by Plaintiff Mora

involves issues unrelated to the claims in this case. 

 The Court finds that the Northern District of California would not be a more convenient

forum for the parties and the witnesses and would not serve the interest of justice. 

For the reasons stated above, Motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 14, 2007

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00719-MMA-WMC Document 32 Filed 09/14/07 Page 2 of 2