Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00907/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00907-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 29:203 Equal Pay Act

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JORDAN WARMAN, individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 15cv907-LAB (JMA)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

vs.

AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS

INSTITUTE,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Jordan Warman is a Canadian citizen residing in Ontario, Canada. (Docket

no. 1, ¶ 8.) He filed this putative class action against the American National Standards

Institute (ANSI), alleged to be a New York corporation with its headquarters in Washington,

D.C. (Id., ¶ 4.) Warman brings claims under both the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and

New York state law, and alleges he worked in Washington, D.C., Maryland, and New Jersey

when his claims arose. (Id., ¶ 8.) The complaint's sole allegation concerning jurisdiction

merely says "Venue in this Court is proper because ANSI regularly conducts business and

employs employees throughout the country, including California." (Id., ¶ 7.) There is no

allegation, however, that any class member’s claim arose in this District, or even in

California. Thus, the Court ordered Plaintiff Jordan Warman to show cause why this case

should not be dismissed for improper venue. (Docket no. 5.) In response, Warman contends

- 1 - 15cv907

Case 3:15-cv-00907-LAB-JMA Document 10 Filed 05/22/15 Page 1 of 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

that venue is proper because it is likely that numerous unnamed class members are currently

working for ANSI in the Southern District of California. (Docket no. 7.) He explains

To accomplish [its] mission, ANSI employs assessors, to accredit and assess

[Standard Developing Organizations]’s throughout the United States including

in the Southern District of California. Discovery has not yet been conducted

but it is likely that there are numerous assessors who reside and are currently

working in the Southern District of California. Based on the fact that ANSI’s

assessors, many of whom are putative class members, are consistently in the

Southern District of California the minimum contacts analysis is more than

satisfied because ANSI regulates Southern District businesses and the

organization has availed itself to the laws of California.

(Id. at 3.)

I. Discussion

A. Venue

A civil action may be brought in any of the following:

(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are

residents of the State in which the district is located;

(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions

giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the

subject of the action is situated; or

(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as

provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject

to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). For the purposes of the venue statute, entity defendants are "deemed

to reside . . . in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court's personal

jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2). 

B. Personal Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction is divided into two categories—general and specific. Martinez

v. Aero Caribbean, 764 F.3d 1062, 1066 (9th Cir. 2014). "[T]he plaintiff bears the burden of

demonstrating that the court has jurisdiction. In re W. States Wholesale Natural Gas

Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 741 (9th Cir. 2013).

/ / /

/ / /

- 2 - 15cv907

Case 3:15-cv-00907-LAB-JMA Document 10 Filed 05/22/15 Page 2 of 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

1. General Jurisdiction

For a corporation, general jurisdiction exists in the states where it is "essentially at

home," such as its place of incorporation and principal place of business. Lightfoot v.

Cendant Mortg. Corp., 769 F.3d 681, 689 (9th Cir. 2014). "General jurisdiction over a

corporation is appropriate only when the corporation's contacts with the forum state are so

constant and pervasive as to render it essentially at home in the state." Martinez, 764 F.3d

at 1066. Warman's allegation that ANSI "likely" has employees in this district doesn't make

it "essentially at home" here. See Moldauer v. Constellation Brands Inc., 2015 WL 1541961,

at *4 (D.D.C. Apr. 3, 2015) (conducting business in a district doesn't demonstrate operations

so substantial that it's "essentially at home" there). Warman hasn't shown that general

jurisdiction exists over ANSI.

2. Specific Jurisdiction

Warman's assertion that the Court has jurisdiction is based on the theory that

unnamed proposed class members likely have claims that arise out of ANSI's contacts with

California. "However, claims of unnamed class members are irrelevant to the question of

specific jurisdiction." AM Trust v. UBS AG, 2015 WL 395465, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2015);

see also Ambriz v. Coca Cola Co., 2014 WL 296159, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2014) ("The

general rule is that only the residence of the named parties is relevant for determining

whether venue is proper."). Warman hasn't shown that specific jurisdiction exists either. 

Thus, Warman's suit was filed in an improper venue.

C. Transfer

In the alternative, Warman asks the Court to transfer this case to New York or

Washington, D.C. pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). A motion to transfer venue under

§ 1404(a) requires the court to weigh multiple factors, including: 

(1) the location where the relevant agreements were negotiated and executed,

(2) the state that is most familiar with the governing law, (3) the plaintiff's

choice of forum, (4) the respective parties' contacts with the forum, (5) the

contacts relating to the plaintiff's cause of action in the chosen forum, (6) the

differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums, (7) the availability of

compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses,

and (8) the ease of access to sources of proof.

- 3 - 15cv907

Case 3:15-cv-00907-LAB-JMA Document 10 Filed 05/22/15 Page 3 of 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

Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498–99 (9th Cir. 2000). Warman hasn't

provided the information necessary for the Court to weigh these factors and decide whether

this case should be transferred to the district court in Washington, D.C. or one of the districts

in New York. Thus, the Court declines to transfer this case.

II. Conclusion

This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for improper venue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 21, 2015

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 4 - 15cv907

Case 3:15-cv-00907-LAB-JMA Document 10 Filed 05/22/15 Page 4 of 4