Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04512/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04512-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

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 

KATHY FRAZIER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MORGAN STANLEY, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-cv-4512-PJH 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

TRANSFER VENUE 

 

On January 6, 2016, plaintiff’s motion to transfer venue came on for hearing before 

this court. Plaintiff Kathy Frazier (“plaintiff”) appeared through her counsel, Linda 

Friedman. Defendants Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, 

and Morgan Stanley (referred to collectively as “defendants” or “Morgan Stanley”) 

appeared through their counsel, Mark Dichter. Having read the papers filed in 

conjunction with the motion and carefully considered the arguments and the relevant 

legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

This is an employment discrimination case brought by a former financial advisor 

for Morgan Stanley. She brings the action both as an individual and on behalf of a 

putative class. At a general level, plaintiff alleges that defendants have policies and 

practices that result in racial disparities. In particular, plaintiff challenges defendants’ 

“teaming and pooling” policy and practice, under which financial advisors form “teams” 

with other financial advisors of their choosing, each member of the team sharing their 

client account and books of business with the rest of the team. Plaintiff claims that 

Case 4:15-cv-04512-PJH Document 33 Filed 01/29/16 Page 1 of 6
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 

African-American financial advisors are almost entirely excluded from favorable teams 

and pools. Overall, plaintiff claims that Morgan Stanley is engaged in a pattern and 

practice of racial discrimination and knowingly employs policies and practices that have a 

disparate impact on African Americans. 

 Plaintiff filed suit in this court on September 30, 2015, and then filed a motion to 

relate this case to an earlier case filed in this district, Jaffe v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., 

Case No. C 06-3903. Jaffe was also a class action challenging racial discrimination at 

Morgan Stanley, and resulted in a settlement that was approved by the court in 2008. 

The motion to relate was denied, as the judge presiding over Jaffe found that the two 

cases did not meet the relevant standard to relate cases under Civil Local Rule 3-12. 

 After the motion to relate was denied, plaintiff filed this motion to transfer the case 

to the Southern District of New York. 

DISCUSSION 

A. Legal Standard 

“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). Section 1404(a) “is intended to place discretion in 

the district court to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an ‘individualized, caseby-case consideration of convenience and fairness.’” Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 

487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (citation omitted). Thus, in considering whether to grant a motion 

to transfer, the district court may consider any of a number of “case-specific factors.” See 

id. 

Although § 1404(a) lists three factors - convenience of parties, convenience of 

witnesses, and the interest of justice - rulings in motions brought under § 1404(a) can 

involve a number of other considerations. For example, the court can consider: 

(1) the location where the relevant documents were negotiated and executed; 

(2) the state most familiar with the governing law (in order to avoid confusion with 

application of foreign law); 

Case 4:15-cv-04512-PJH Document 33 Filed 01/29/16 Page 2 of 6
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 

(3) plaintiff’s choice of forum; 

(4) the parties’ contacts with the forum and the connection between plaintiff’s 

cause of action and the chosen forum; 

(5) the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums and congestion of the 

courts; 

(6) the ability to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses; 

(7) the ease of access to sources of proof and the convenience of the witnesses; 

(8) the relevant public policy of the forum state and whether there is a local interest 

in having localized controversies decided at home; and 

(9) the unfairness of imposing jury duty on citizens in a forum unrelated to the 

action. 

Jones, 211 F.3d at 498-99; see also Schwarzer, Tashima & Wagstaffe, Federal Civil 

Procedure Before Trial (2006) § 4:269, et seq. (relevant factors may include relative ease 

of access to proof; reach of subpoena power to secure witness attendance; the feasibility 

of consolidation with action pending elsewhere; state that is most familiar with governing 

state law; relative means of parties; relative docket congestion; plaintiff’s choice of forum; 

each party’s contacts with forum; contacts relating to plaintiff’s cause of action in chosen 

forum; and differences in cost of litigation in two forums). 

B. Legal Analysis 

 As a threshold matter, the court will consider whether this district’s connection to 

Jaffe warrants a finding that the interest of justice is better served by allowing this case to 

proceed in this district. In their opposition to plaintiff’s motion to transfer, defendants 

argue that this suit “challenges several of Morgan Stanley’s policies [], the same policies 

that are encompassed within the Jaffe settlement agreement.” Defendants further argue 

that plaintiff’s first claim, for breach of contract, “is based entirely on plaintiff’s allegation 

that defendants failed to abide by the terms of the Jaffe settlement agreement, an 

agreement that was entered into, approved, and being overseen literally in the United 

States District Court for the Northern District of California.” 

Case 4:15-cv-04512-PJH Document 33 Filed 01/29/16 Page 3 of 6
4 

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 

 However, earlier in this case, defendants held a decidedly different view. In 

opposing plaintiff’s motion to relate this case to Jaffe, defendants argued that this case 

had no connection to Jaffe, as “the two actions involve substantially different facts and 

legal claims.” Defendants further pointed out that, while this court technically retained 

jurisdiction over the Jaffe settlement agreement, such retention of jurisdiction was “solely 

for the purpose of entering all orders and judgments authorized that may be necessary to 

implement and enforce the relief provided” in the settlement agreement. Dkt. 303 at 1 

(internal citation and bracketed language omitted). Defendants then directly challenged 

the merits of plaintiff’s breach of contract claim – the same claim that defendants now 

invoke to argue against transfer – arguing that the Jaffe settlement agreement 

“preclude[s] Frazier’s breach of contract claim,” because it “explicitly states that 

‘[e]nforcement of this Modified Settlement Agreement shall be prosecuted by Lead Class 

Counsel or counsel for [Morgan Stanley] only, not third parties.” Dkt. 303 at 3 (internal 

citation omitted) (emphasis added by defendants). 

 While the court will not address the merits of plaintiff’s breach of contract claim in 

connection with this motion, it does take the Jaffe settlement’s terms into account when 

evaluating whether the existence of the settlement weighs against transferring this case 

out of this district. And because the court retained jurisdiction over the agreement only 

for the limited purpose discussed above, a purpose which is not relevant to this case, the 

court finds that there is no relevant “nexus” between the agreement and this district. To 

the extent that plaintiff claims a breach of that agreement, this court is no better equipped 

than any other court to interpret the contract and rule on the merits of plaintiff’s claim. 

Accordingly, the court will conduct the section 1404 analysis without reference to the 

Jaffe settlement agreement. 

With Jaffe off the table, the court must look only at plaintiff’s suit to determine 

whether the convenience of parties and witnesses and the interest of justice warrant 

transfer to the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff argues that she is challenging 

firmwide policies that were designed and implemented by defendants’ senior executives 

Case 4:15-cv-04512-PJH Document 33 Filed 01/29/16 Page 4 of 6
5 

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 

in New York, making New York the most convenient venue for the parties and witnesses. 

Defendants, on the other hand, argue that plaintiff worked in Morgan Stanley’s Honolulu, 

Hawaii branch office, which is closer to California than to New York, and further argue 

that the Honolulu office is “part of the Palo Alto/Hawaii Complex based in Palo Alto, 

California.” Defendants explain that a “Complex” is a group of branches composed of 

one lead branch (in this instance, the Palo Alto branch) and other, smaller branches 

(such as the Honolulu branch) overseen by the Complex branch. 

However, defendants provide an incomplete picture of the connection between the 

Honolulu branch and the Palo Alto branch. In their opposition, defendants argue that 

“[s]ince October 2012, the Palo Alto/Hawaii Complex, of which the Honolulu branch is a 

part, has been headquartered at the Complex branch in Palo Alto.” Dkt. 19 at 1. 

Defendants further argue that “[a]s of October 2012, and at the time of plaintiff’s 

resignation and today, Cira Nickerson, the Complex Manager, managed this Complex,” 

and that “Ms. Nickerson works in Palo Alto.” Id. 

Based on the above, defendants have established a connection between the 

Honolulu branch and the Palo Alto branch from October 2012 to the present. However, 

plaintiff’s employment with Morgan Stanley began much earlier – in 2007 – and ended in 

November 2013. For the time period from 2007 to October 2012 (i.e., the majority of the 

time that plaintiff was employed by Morgan Stanley), defendants have provided no 

indication that plaintiff’s employment was connected to this district. 

Moreover, while plaintiff’s individual claims may involve witnesses from this district, 

there is no indication that the same is true of her class claims. As mentioned above, 

plaintiff challenges company-wide policies, and defendants’ headquarters are located in 

New York. Defendants do not dispute that point, nor do they argue that any challenged 

policies were designed or implemented in this district. The court finds that the gravamen 

of this suit arises out of plaintiff’s challenges to defendants’ policies on behalf of a 

putative class, not out of her individualized claims. Accordingly, the court finds that 

transfer to the Southern District of New York would be more convenient to the parties and 

Case 4:15-cv-04512-PJH Document 33 Filed 01/29/16 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court 

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 

wit

is G

Da

tnesses, an

GRANTED

IT IS S

ated: Janua

nd in the int

. 

SO ORDER

ary 29, 201

erest of jus

RED. 

6 

6

tice, and th

__

PH

Un

herefore, pl

__________

HYLLIS J. H

nited States

aintiff’s mo

__________

HAMILTON

s District Ju

otion to tran

__________

udge 

sfer venue 

______ 

Case 4:15-cv-04512-PJH Document 33 Filed 01/29/16 Page 6 of 6