Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00459/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00459-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: 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

KENNETH MONTGOMERY,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED AIRLINES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00459-VC 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

TRANSFER

Re: Doc. No. 27

The plaintiff in this case was originally part of a lawsuit filed in the Northern District of 

California by 23 current or former employees of United Airlines alleging race discrimination with 

respect to promotions. After several rounds of motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the 

previously-assigned judge concluded that the plaintiffs had ultimately stated a claim for disparate 

treatment discrimination (but not disparate impact discrimination). Then, the previously-assigned 

judge concluded that the 23 plaintiffs had been improperly joined, and ordered that the case be 

severed into 23 separate lawsuits. Each plaintiff then filed a separate complaint (labeled as the 

"Fifth Amended Complaint"), and the lawsuits were assigned to numerous different judges in the 

Northern District pursuant to the Court's random assignment system. Then Chief Judge Hamilton, 

acting in her capacity as Chair of this Court's Executive Committee, issued an order reassigning all 

23 cases to the undersigned judge, to conserve judicial resources and avoid duplication of effort. 

Even though each plaintiff filed a separate complaint, the complaints were nothing but cutand-paste jobs. And with respect to promotional opportunities that were unposted, it did not 

appear that any of the complaints stated a claim for race discrimination, because no individual 

complaint included allegations about which unposted promotional opportunities the plaintiff had 

made himself available for. As a result, in almost all the cases, the undersigned judge issued an

Case 3:15-cv-00459-VC Document 34 Filed 05/22/15 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

order to show cause why the claims relating to unposted positions should not be dismissed (with 

one more chance to amend) for failure to state a claim for race discrimination.

But in this case, it also appeared from the face of the complaint that the lawsuit was not 

properly brought in this district. Accordingly, in this case, rather than issuing the abovereferenced order to show cause, the court first permitted the defendants to file a motion to transfer. 

That motion is now granted.

Title VII's venue provision, which governs this case, provides that a case may be brought: 

(1) "in any judicial district in the State in which the unlawful employment practice is alleged to 

have been committed," (2) "in the judicial district in which the employment records relevant to 

such practice are maintained and administered," or (3) "in the judicial district in which the 

aggrieved person would have worked but for the alleged unlawful employment practice." 42 

U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3). 

The unlawful employment practice is committed either where the decision is made or 

where the effect of the decision is felt, usually where the employee works. Passantino v. Johnson 

& Johnson Consumer Prods. Inc., 212 F.3d 493, 505 (9th Cir. 2000). The parties agree that 

United's decisions about how to fill vacancies are made where the vacant position is located, but 

the plaintiff, Mr. Montgomery, does not allege he was denied any positions or special assignments

in California. Mr. Montgomery works at Dulles and lives in Virginia; he has never worked in 

California. Thus, the complaint does not allege any unlawful employment practice was committed

in California. 

Next, Montgomery asserts that his employment records are electronically stored in 

United's software program, TALEO, which is hosted by Oracle, a California company. And he 

asserts that because the IP address connects back to Redwood Shores, California (where Oracle is 

located), this is enough to confer venue. But the statute provides that the action may be brought 

where the relevant records are "maintained and administered," not where the IP address for the 

server is located. And in any event the evidence shows the records are stored on a server outside 

of Chicago. Dubois Decl. ¶ 3. 

Finally, because Montgomery does not allege he sought and was denied promotional 

Case 3:15-cv-00459-VC Document 34 Filed 05/22/15 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

opportunities in California, by definition he would not have worked in California but for the 

alleged race discrimination. For these reasons, this district is not the proper venue. Because this 

case could have been filed in the Eastern District of Virginia, because the plaintiff lives and works 

in that district, and because this appears to be the most convenient venue for the parties and 

witnesses, the case is transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia.1 

And even if somehow venue were proper in this district, the court would exercise its 

discretion to transfer the matter to the Eastern District of Virginia for convenience of the parties 

and the witnesses. The only reason this case is presently in this district is that counsel for the 

plaintiff wants to keep the previously-joined cases together in San Francisco, presumably for 

strategic reasons or for the lawyers' own convenience (or some combination of the two). But those 

concerns are outweighed by the fact that this is, in virtually all respects, a dispute that arose and 

resides in the Eastern District of Virginia.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 22, 2015

______________________________________

 VINCE CHHABRIA

 United States District Judge

 

1

The defendants have moved for a transfer to the Eastern District of Virginia. In response to the 

transfer motion, the plaintiff has not requested, as an alternative to keeping the case here, transfer 

to a venue other than the Eastern District of Virginia.

Case 3:15-cv-00459-VC Document 34 Filed 05/22/15 Page 3 of 3