Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03428/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03428-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Denial of Overtime Compensation

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LINDA GIUSTI-MANGIAMELI,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITIMORTGAGE, INC.,

Defendant /

No. C-06-3428 MMC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE;

VACATING HEARING

Before the Court is defendant Citimortgage, Inc.’s motion, filed June 30, 2006, to

transfer the above-titled action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Plaintiff Linda GiustiMangiameli has filed opposition, to which defendant has replied. Having considered the

papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court deems the matter

suitable for decision on those submissions, VACATES the hearing scheduled for August

11, 2006, and rules as follows.

For the reasons stated in defendant’s motion and reply, the Court finds that the

above-titled action should be transferred to the Central District of California, for the

convenience of the parties and witnesses, and in the interests of justice. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1404(a). In particular, as defendant points out, (1) plaintiff’s choice of forum is entitled to

little deference, given that no part of her claims arose in this District; (2) the operative facts

pertaining to plaintiff’s claims for overtime and other wages arose in the Central District, the

Case 3:06-cv-03428-MMC Document 18 Filed 08/07/06 Page 1 of 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

2

location where plaintiff worked for defendant; (3) plaintiff resided in the Central District

when her claims arose, and she continues to reside there; (4) although defendant’s

principal place of business is not in California, defendant’s West Coast operations office is

located in the Central District; (5) neither party has identified any person residing in this

District who might provide relevant testimony with respect to plaintiff’s claims, whereas

defendant has noted the presence of numerous potential witnesses in the Central District,

such as the persons who trained plaintiff, the individuals who managed and supervised

plaintiff, plaintiff’s co-workers, and clients for whom plaintiff performed services; and

(6) neither party has identified any relevant physical evidence located in this District,

whereas defendant has identified a substantial amount of such evidence located in the

Central District. See Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F. 3d 495, 498 (9th Cir.) (setting

forth factors to be considered on motion to transfer for convenience, including plaintiffs’

choice of forum, situs of operative facts from which plaintiffs’ claims arise, and location of

relevant witnesses and other sources of proof), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 928 (2000); Pacific

Car and Foundry Co. v. Pence, 403 F. 2d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 1968) (holding where operative

facts from which plaintiff’s claim arise do not occur in chosen forum, plaintiff’s choice not

accorded usual degree of deference).

Plaintiff argues the above factors are outweighed by the fact that she seeks to

proceed on behalf of a class and that some of the potential class members work or have

worked for defendant in this District. Defendant, however, has offered evidence,

undisputed by plaintiff, that all persons holding the same job title as plaintiff are trained in

the Central District, (see Carley Decl. ¶ 4), and, additionally, has shown that a greater

number of potential class members work or have worked for defendant in the Central

District than in this District, (see Payne Decl. ¶¶ 2, 3). Further, plaintiff has not identified

any potential class representative other than herself, and she alleges her individual claim,

which has no connection with this District, is “typical” of the claims of all potential class

members. (See Compl. ¶ 8.) Consequently, the presence of potential class members,

under the circumstances herein, either weighs in favor of transfer or, at best, is neutral.

Case 3:06-cv-03428-MMC Document 18 Filed 08/07/06 Page 2 of 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

3

Accordingly, defendant’s motion to transfer will be granted.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, defendant’s motion is hereby GRANTED, and the matter is

hereby TRANSFERRED to the Central District of California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 7, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03428-MMC Document 18 Filed 08/07/06 Page 3 of 3