Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-06030/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-06030-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

1 Shaun Setareh (SBN 204514)

shaun@setarehlaw.com

2 Thomas Segal (SBN 222791)

thomas@setarehlaw.com

3 SETAREH LAW GROUP

9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907

4 Beverly Hills, California 90212

Telephone (310) 888-7771

5 Facsimile (310) 888-0109

6 Attorneys for Plaintiff

ROXANNE SLUSHER

7

Yvette Davis (SBN 165777)

8 ydavis@hbblaw.com

HAIGHT BROWN & BONESTEEL LLP

9 2050 Main Street, Suite 600

Irvine, California 92614

10 Telephone: 714.426.4600

Facsimile: 714.754.0826

11

Mark A. Knueve (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

12 maknueve@vorys.com

Daniel J. Clark (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

13 djclark@vorys.com

George L. Stevens (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

14 glstevens@vorys.com

VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR & PEASE LLP

15 52 East Gay Street, P.O. Box 1008

Columbus, Ohio 43216-1008

16 Phone: 614.464.6436

Fax: 614.464.8054

17

Attorneys for Defendants BIG LOTS STORES, INC.

18 and BIG LOTS F&S, INC.

19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

20 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

21

22 ROXANNE SLUSHER, on behalf of herself, 

all others similarly situated, and the general 

23 public,

24 Plaintiff, 

25 vs. 

BIG LOTS STORES, INC., an Ohio 26 corporation; BIG LOTS F&S, INC., an Ohio

corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, 27 inclusive, 

28 Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-06030-RS 

JOINT STIPULATION REQUESTING 

TRANSFER PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.

§ 1404(a); ORDER

[Filed concurrently with [Proposed] Order]

Judge: Hon. Richard Seeborg 

Action Filed: September 21, 2017 

JOINT STIPULATION REQUESTING TRANSFER; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case 3:17-cv-06030-RS Document 72 Filed 12/13/19 Page 1 of 7
1

1 This Stipulation is made by and between Plaintiff ROXANNE SLUSHER (“Plaintiff”) and 

2 Defendants BIG LOTS STORES, INC. and BIG LOTS F&S, INC. (“Defendants”) (collectively,

3 the “Parties”). The Parties, through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate to and

4 request the Court to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Central District of

5 California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In support, the Parties respectfully show the Court the 

6 following: 

7 The purpose of the requested transfer is to facilitate a consolidated settlement of this case

8 with another case pending against Defendants in the Central District of California: Viola Hubbs v.

9 Big Lots Stores, Inc., et al, Case No. 2:15-cv-01601JAK (ASx) (the “Hubbs case”). The cases

10 include allegations (which Defendants deny) that Defendants violated California wage-hour laws 

11 by failing to (1) pay overtime; (2) pay minimum wages; (3) provide meal periods and/or meal 

12 period premium payments; (4) provide rest periods and/or rest period premium payments; 

13 (5) provide compliant wage statements; (6) pay all wages upon termination of employment to 

14 former employees; (7) timely pay wages during employment; (8) properly compensate for split 

15 shifts; and (9) provide suitable seating to employees. Plaintiffs also assert claims under the Private 

16 Attorneys General Act, California Labor Code sections 2698, et seq. (“PAGA”) and California 

17 Business & Professions Code sections 17200, et seq., as well as other damages. 

18 Counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants in this case and in the Hubbs case have executed a 

19 Settlement Agreement that, upon its final approval and becoming effective on the terms and 

20 conditions stated therein, will fully and finally resolve the claims in all of these cases against 

21 Defendants. In the Settlement Agreement, the Parties agreed that preliminary and final approval 

22 will be sought in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, where the 

23 Hubbs case was pending, which litigation was furthest advanced at the time that the Parties 

24 executed the Settlement Agreement. A motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement 

25 Agreement will be filed in the Central District of California where this case will be consolidated 

26 with the Hubbs case for settlement purposes before the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt. 

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

28 of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it 

Case No. 3:17-cv-06030-RS 

JOINT STIPULATION REQUESTING TRANSFER; 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Case 3:17-cv-06030-RS Document 72 Filed 12/13/19 Page 2 of 7
2

1 might have been brought.” Under either diversity jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)) or federal

2 question jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)), an action may be brought “in (1) a judicial district

3 where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, [or] (2) a judicial district in 

4 which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. . . .” A 

5 corporate defendant is “deemed to reside in any judicial district in which it is subject to personal

6 jurisdiction at the time the action [was] commenced.” Id. at (c). This action could have been 

7 brought in the District for Central District of California, where Defendants are subject to personal 

8 jurisdiction. Although Plaintiffs initially chose to bring this action in this District, for purposes of

9 settlement only, transferring it to the Central District of California to facilitate settlement will

10 serve the interests of justice. 

11 “[S]ince [Section] 1404(a) looks to sound judicial administration, the court may order a 

12 transfer whenever the circumstances justify the requirement. . . .” Blumenthal v. Mgmt. Assistance,

13 Inc., 480 F. Supp. 470, 471 (N.D. Ill. 1979). In addressing a motion to transfer venue under 

14 Section 1404(a), three elements must be established: “(1) that venue is proper in the transferor 

15 district; (2) that the transferee district is one where the action might have been brought; and 

16 (3) that the transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and will promote the 

17 interest of justice.” Vu v. Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc., 602 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1155-56 (N.D. Cal. 

18 2009) (quoting Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 820 F. Supp. 503, 506 

19 (C.D. Cal. 1992)). Once venue is determined to be proper in both districts, courts use the 

20 following factors to evaluate whether a transfer of venue would be more convenient to the parties 

21 and the witnesses and would promote the interests of justice: (1) plaintiffs’ choice of forum, 

22 (2) convenience of the parties, (3) convenience of the witnesses, (4) ease of access to the evidence, 

23 (5) familiarity of each forum with the applicable law, (6) feasibility of consolidation with other 

24 claims, (7) any local interest in the controversy, and (8) the relative court congestion and time of 

25 trial in each forum. Vu, 602 F. Supp. 2d at 1156. 

26 Here, the Parties are requesting the change of venue, for their convenience, to the Central 

27 District of California to facilitate a settlement of multiple cases in a single proceeding, which 

28 would constitute the overriding application of the “interests of justice” consideration. See Mercury

Case No. 3:17-cv-06030-RS 

JOINT STIPULATION REQUESTING TRANSFER; 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Case 3:17-cv-06030-RS Document 72 Filed 12/13/19 Page 3 of 7
3

1 Serv., Inc. v. Allied Bank of Texas, 117 F.R.D. 147, 154–55 (C.D. Cal. 1987), aff’d, 907 F.2d 154 

2 (9th Cir. 1990) (recognizing that the ultimate goal of a court in analyzing a motion to transfer 

3 venue is to serve both the convenience of the parties and witnesses, as well as the interests of 

4 justice); see also United States ex rel. Ondis v. City Woonsocket, 480 F. Supp. 2d 434, 436 (D. 

5 Mass. 2007) (“The fundamental concern manifest in § 1404(a) is that litigation be conducted in the 

6 federal court which will best serve the ‘interest of justice.’”). Additionally, inasmuch as the 

7 requested transfer is for purposes of facilitating settlement, ease of access to proof and the 

8 convenience of the witnesses are irrelevant. Moreover, both forums are familiar with the 

9 applicable law, so this factor similarly does not weigh against transfer. 

10 Accordingly, the Parties hereby stipulate to and respectfully request that this Court transfer 

11 this case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. A Proposed 

12 Order is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

13 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

14 

15 

16 DATED: December 12, 2019 SETAREH LAW GROUP 

17 

18

/ s T hom as Se gal ( w i t h pe r mi s s i on) 

19 SHAUN SETAREH

THOMAS SEGAL

20

Attorneys for Plaintiff 21 ROXANNE SLUSHER 

22 

23 DATED: December 12, 2019 VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR & PEASE LLP 

24 

25 /s George L. Stevens 

26 MARK A. KNUEVE 

DANIEL J. CLARK 

27 GEORGE L. STEVENS

28 Attorneys for Defendants BIG LOTS STORES, INC., 

and BIG LOTS F&S, INC. 

Case No. 3:17-cv-06030-RS

JOINT STIPULATION REQUESTING TRANSFER; 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Case 3:17-cv-06030-RS Document 72 Filed 12/13/19 Page 4 of 7
4

1 F I L E R ’ S A TT E S TA T I O N 

2 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the filer of this document attests that 

3 concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from the other 

4 signatory above. 

5 

6 DATED: December 12, 2019 / s / G e or ge L. St e v e ns 

7 GEORGE L. STEVENS

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case No. 3:17-cv-06030-RS 

JOINT STIPULATION REQUESTING TRANSFER; 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Case 3:17-cv-06030-RS Document 72 Filed 12/13/19 Page 5 of 7
EXHIBIT A

Case 3:17-cv-06030-RS Document 72 Filed 12/13/19 Page 6 of 7
5

1 O R DE R 

2 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 

3 Having considered the Stipulation between counsel for Plaintiff ROXANNE 

4 SLUSHER and Defendants BIG LOTS STORES, INC. and BIG LOTS F&S, INC, 

5 and good cause appearing therefore, the Parties’ Stipulation is hereby GRANTED /

6 DENIED. This Court hereby ORDERS: 

7 1. That this matter is TRANSFERRED to the United States District 

8 Court for the Central District of California. 

9 2. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to the Clerk for 

10 the Central District of California and to the chambers of the judge 

11 (Judge John A. Kronstadt) there assigned to the Hubbs case. 

12 

13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

14 

15 DATED: December 13, 2019 

RICHARD SEEBORG 16 United States District Judge 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28

Case No. 3:17-cv-06030-RS 

JOINT STIPULATION REQUESTING TRANSFER; 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Case 3:17-cv-06030-RS Document 72 Filed 12/13/19 Page 7 of 7