Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00815/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00815-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

SEND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 09-4967 PA (CWx) Date January 6, 2010

Title Christopher D. MacDevitt, et al. v. California Pizza Kitchen, et al.

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 2

Present: The

Honorable

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Paul Songco Not Reported N/A

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None None

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER

Plaintiffs Christopher D. MacDevitt, Robert H. Rede, and Catherine Riley (“Plaintiffs”) filed this

action against defendant California Pizza Kitchen (“Defendant”). In their Second Amended Complaint,

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant violated their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the

Family and Medical Leave Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and the California

Family Rights Act. Plaintiffs are Defendant’s former restaurant employees. Plaintiffs MacDevitt and

Rede allege that they requested reduced hours because they suffer from medical conditions which limit

their ability to work long hours. Defendant denied these requests, which led to the constructive

discharge of MacDevitt and Rede. Plaintiff Riley alleges that Defendant terminated her after she

requested leave to care for her mother, who has Alzheimer’s disease. 

According to the parties’ Joint Scheduling Conference Report, Plaintiffs worked at multiple

restaurants located in “Northern California,” and they plan to depose witnesses who worked at those

restaurants. Plaintiffs are all residents of the Northern District of California, and the parties indicate that

most depositions will take place in the San Francisco or San Jose areas, which are both located in the

Northern District of California. 

Accordingly, the Court orders Plaintiffs, no later than January 27, 2010, to show cause in writing

(not to exceed 15 pages) why this action should not be transferred to the United States District Court for

the Northern District of California (“Northern District”) for the convenience of the parties and

witnesses, and in the interests of justice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Defendant is ordered to file its

response no later than February 3, 2010. All factual matters relied upon in the parties’ submissions must

be supported by appropriate declarations and admissible evidence. To assist the Court in determining

whether transfer is appropriate and in the interest of justice, the parties are directed to address the

following, in addition to sharing their beliefs as to which forum is more convenient for the parties and

witnesses:

1. Whether this action could have been brought in the Northern District.

2. Whether venue is appropriate in the Northern District.

Case 3:10-cv-00815-VRW Document 26 Filed 01/06/10 Page 1 of 2
SEND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 09-4967 PA (CWx) Date January 6, 2010

Title Christopher D. MacDevitt, et al. v. California Pizza Kitchen, et al.

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 2 of 2

3. What contacts, if any, each of the parties has to the Central District of California

(“Central District”) and to the Northern District. The parties should include information

regarding the location of their administrative offices, real property, sources of revenue,

and points of public contact.

4. What connection Plaintiff’s cause of action has to the Central District and to the Northern

District.

5. Which witnesses are expected to be called and where they reside.

6. The availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling non-party

witnesses in the Central District as compared to the Northern District.

7. The ease of access to sources of proof in each of the two forums.

8. The expected difference in the cost of litigation in the Central District as compared to the

Northern District.

9. Whether there are any alternative forums, other than the Central District or theNorthern

District, that would be more convenient for this action and why, keeping in mind the

inquiries above.

Plaintiffs’ failure to timely respond to the order to show cause may result in the dismissal of this

action without prejudice. The Scheduling Conference currently on calendar for January 11, 2010 is

hereby continued to February 22, 2010 at 10:30 a.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 3:10-cv-00815-VRW Document 26 Filed 01/06/10 Page 2 of 2