Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_20-cv-02145/USCOURTS-cand-4_20-cv-02145-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LISA MCCARRICK,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 20-cv-02145-HSG 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

TRANSFER VENUE

Re: Dkt. No. 15

Pending before the Court is Defendant Amazon.com Services LLC’s motion to transfer 

this action to the Eastern District of California. Dkt. No. 15. The Court finds this matter 

appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the matter is deemed submitted. See Civil 

L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons detailed below, the Court DENIES the motion.

In support of its motion to transfer, Defendant cites 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). This provision 

provides that “[f]or 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). 

The transfer statute exists “to prevent the waste of time, energy and money and to protect 

litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense.” See Van 

Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964) (quotations omitted). The district court has broad 

discretion in deciding whether or not to transfer an action. See Ventress v. Japan Airlines, 486 

F.3d 1111, 1118 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[T]he district court’s decision to change venue is reviewed for 

abuse of discretion. Weighing of the factors for and against transfer involves subtle considerations 

and is best left to the discretion of the trial judge.”) (quotations omitted). District courts may 

consider a variety of factors in determining whether to transfer an action. See Jones v. GNC 

Case 4:20-cv-02145-HSG Document 23 Filed 06/11/20 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498–99 (9th Cir. 2000); Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth 

Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). The relevant factors include:

(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 of other claims, (7) any local interest in the 

controversy, and (8) the relative court congestion and time of trial in 

each forum.

Barnes & Noble v. LSI Corp., 823 F. Supp. 2d 980, 993 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (quotations omitted). 

The moving party bears the burden of showing that the transferee district is a “more appropriate 

forum.” See Jones, 211 F.3d at 499 (9th Cir. 2000). It is not enough for a defendant to merely 

show that it prefers another forum, and transfer will also not be allowed if the result is merely to 

shift the inconvenience from one party to another. See Van Dusen, 376 U.S. at 645-46.

Having reviewed the motion in detail, the Court finds that neither the convenience of the 

parties or witnesses nor the interests of justice counsel in favor of transfer. Plaintiff alleges that 

she generally worked out of her home and traveled throughout California during her employment. 

See Dkt. No. 1-1, Ex. A. And the majority of witnesses that the parties have identified appear to 

be located outside of California entirely. See Dkt. No. 15-1 at ¶ 7; Dkt. No. 19-1 at ¶¶ 7–8. As 

such, the Court finds that there is little efficiency gained by transferring the action to the Eastern 

District of California. And in the absence of other compelling reasons to transfer to the Eastern 

District of California, the Court DENIES the motion in its discretion.

1

//

//

//

//

//

1 The Court notes that in connection with its motion, Defendant also filed a request for judicial 

notice. Dkt. No. 16. Because the Court did not rely on these documents in exercising its 

discretion, the Court DENIES AS MOOT the request for judicial notice.

Case 4:20-cv-02145-HSG Document 23 Filed 06/11/20 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

The initial case management conference, scheduled for June 30, remains on calendar, and 

the parties’ case management statement is due June 23.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

6/11/2020

Case 4:20-cv-02145-HSG Document 23 Filed 06/11/20 Page 3 of 3