Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02857/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02857-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Beverly Gintz
Plaintiff
Jack in the Box
Defendant
Maria Macias
Plaintiff
Sherry Owen
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BEVERLY GINTZ, SHERRY OWEN and MARIA

MACIAS, individually and on behalf of

all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

JACK IN THE BOX, INC., and DOES 1

through 25, inclusive,

Defendant.

 /

No. C06-02857 CW

ORDER GRANTING IN

PART AND DENYING

IN PART

DEFENDANT'S

MOTION TO

TRANSFER VENUE

Defendant Jack in the Box, Inc. moves, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1404(a), to transfer this action to the Northern District of

Texas. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. The matter was decided on

the papers. Having considered all of the papers filed by the

parties, the Court GRANTS in part the motion to transfer venue and

DENIES it in part. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Beverly Gintz filed a California state court class

action in Orange County Superior Court alleging, among other claims,

that Defendant Jack in the Box, Inc. (JIB) failed to provide meals

and rest periods to non-exempt employees working at JIB corporate

restaurants, which Defendant owns. During her investigation of

these claims, Plaintiff Gintz discovered that Defendant's alleged

unlawful polices and practices were widespread, affecting employees

at JIB corporate restaurants throughout the United States. 

Case 4:06-cv-02857-CW Document 46 Filed 02/01/07 Page 1 of 11
United States District Court

For the 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 2

There are 974 JIB corporate restaurants in the United States

located outside of California. See Kaufhold Decl. at ¶ 3. 

Approximately two-thirds of these 974 JIB corporate restaurants are

operated by Jack in the Box Eastern Division L.P. (JIB Eastern

Division), a Texas Limited Partnership affiliated with JIB. Id. at

¶¶ 3-4. All of the 499 JIB corporate restaurants located in Texas

are operated by JIB Eastern Division. Id. at ¶ 3. Both the

registered agent for JIB Eastern Division and the Director of Human

Resources and Training for the JIB Eastern Division-operated

restaurants are located in the Northern District of Texas. Id. at

¶ 4. 

On April 27, 2006, Plaintiffs filed the present federal action,

alleging both California state law causes of action and a federal

law cause of action. The federal law cause of action, on behalf of

a nation-wide class and a California class, alleges violations of

the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 206-207, based on

non-exempt employees being required to work in excess of eight hours

per day or forty hours per week and to work through paid or unpaid

meal and rest breaks. 

Defendant moved to stay or dismiss the present action. On

November 28, 2006, the Court issued an Order dismissing the state

claims and staying the federal claims of the California class. The

Court denied Defendant's motion to stay or dismiss the federal

claims made on behalf of the nation-wide class members who worked at

a JIB corporate restaurant outside of California (the non-California

class).

Case 4:06-cv-02857-CW Document 46 Filed 02/01/07 Page 2 of 11
United States District Court

For the 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 3

LEGAL STANDARD

A. Transfer of Venue

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides, “For the convenience of the

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.” A district court has broad

discretion to adjudicate motions for transfer on a case-by-case

basis, considering factors of convenience and fairness. See Stewart

Org. Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988); Sparling v.

Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 639 (9th Cir. 1988).

The movant bears the burden of justifying the transfer by a strong

showing of inconvenience. Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison

Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). The motion may be denied if

the increased convenience to one party is offset by the added

inconvenience to the other party. Id.

When adjudicating a motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1404(a), a district court must balance a number case-specific

factors, including the plaintiff’s initial choice of forum,

convenience of the parties and witnesses, and the interest of

justice. See Steward Org., 487 U.S. at 29; Decker Coal Co., 805

F.2d at 842-43; Los Angeles Mem’l Coliseum Comm’n v. Nat’l Football

League, 89 F.R.D. 497, 499 (C.D. Cal. 1981). As a general rule, the

plaintiff’s choice of forum is given significant weight and will not

be disturbed unless other factors weigh substantially in favor of

transfer. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). This is especially true when

the forum chosen by a plaintiff is its domicile. See Los Angeles

Mem’l Coliseum Comm’n, 89 F.R.D. at 499 (citing Pacific Car &

Case 4:06-cv-02857-CW Document 46 Filed 02/01/07 Page 3 of 11
United States District Court

For the 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 4

Foundry Co. v. Pence, 403 F.2d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 1968)). However,

when the plaintiffs represent a class, their choice of forum is

given less weight. Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir.

1987).

A case may be transferred for convenience only to a venue in

which it could have originally been brought. In civil cases where

jurisdiction is based on a federal question, venue is proper in:

(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all

defendants reside in the same State,

(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 the property that is the subject of the

action is situated, or

(3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if

there is no district in which the action may otherwise be

brought.

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

B. Severance of Claims

A court, of its own initiative, may sever any claim against a

party. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 21.

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues that the convenience of the parties and

witnesses in this action requires transfer to Northern District of

Texas. 

A. Venue in the Northern District of Texas

Defendant argues that venue is proper in the Northern District

of Texas because JIB Eastern Division is a necessary party to the

lawsuit and both the registered agent for JIB Eastern Division and

the Director of Human Resources and Training for the JIB Eastern

Division-operated corporate restaurants are located in the Northern

Case 4:06-cv-02857-CW Document 46 Filed 02/01/07 Page 4 of 11
United States District Court

For the 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 5

District of Texas. Plaintiffs argue that, because JIB Eastern

Division appears to be a separate entity from Defendant and is not a

named defendant, venue would not be proper in the Northern District

of Texas. However, due to Defendant's contacts with the Northern

District of Texas, "a judicial district in which a substantial part

of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred," venue

would be proper there. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Accordingly, this

action originally could have been brought in the Northern District

of Texas.

B. Plaintiffs' Choice of Forum

Citing Lou, 834 F.2d at 739, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs'

choice of forum is entitled to little deference in a class action. 

As noted above, the weight to be given to a plaintiff's choice of

forum in a class action is diminished. Id. However, a plaintiff's

choice of forum is still entitled to some deference. The Ninth

Circuit instructs that the amount of deference is determined by the

parties' contact with the forum: "If the operative facts have not

occurred within the forum and the forum has no interest in the

parties or subject matter," the plaintiff's choice of forum is

entitled only minimal consideration. Id.

In the present case, Plaintiffs have chosen the Northern

District of California. The events giving rise to some of the

claims of the California class occurred in this district. Thus,

Plaintiffs' choice of forum for the California class is entitled to

some consideration. However, none of the claims of the nonCase 4:06-cv-02857-CW Document 46 Filed 02/01/07 Page 5 of 11
United States District Court

For the 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 6

California class arose in this district, entitling Plaintiffs'

choice of forum for this class to only minimal consideration. 

C. Convenience of the Forum

Defendant argues that the parties and witnesses will be

inconvenienced by a trial in this district. Title 28 U.S.C.

§ 1404(a) specifically lists "convenience of parties and witnesses"

as one reason justifying transfer of venue. As noted above, a

district court generally refuses a request to transfer when the

effect would simply be to shift the inconvenience from one party to

another. See Decker Coal Co., 805 F.2d at 843.

A number of private and public interest factors should be

considered in determining the convenience of a forum. Decker Coal

Co., 805 F.2d at 843. Private interest factors include: 

the relative ease of access to sources of proof;

availability of compulsory process for attendance of

unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of

willing, witnesses; possibility of view of premises, if

view would be appropriate to the action; and all other

practical problems that make trial of a case easy,

expeditious and inexpensive.

 

Id. (quoting Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947)). 

Public interest factors include: "the administrative difficulties

flowing from court congestion; the 'local interest in having

localized controversies decided at home'; . . . and the unfairness

of burdening citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty." Id.

(quoting Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 241 n.6 (1981)).

1. Access to Proof

Case 4:06-cv-02857-CW Document 46 Filed 02/01/07 Page 6 of 11
United States District Court

For the 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 7

Defendant argues that the evidence to prove the alleged claims

will include testimony of the putative class members and their

supervisors. It argues that, because many of the corporate

restaurants are in the Texas, with the putative class members and

their supervisors residing close to the restaurants, this proof will

be more accessible in the Northern District of Texas. See Kaufhold

Decl. at ¶¶ 3-4. Defendant also argues that the Director of Human

Resources and Training, who is responsible for human resource

matters for the JIB corporate restaurants operated by JIB Eastern

Division, is located in the Northern District of Texas. Kaufhold

Decl. at ¶ 4.

Plaintiffs argue that while, as noted above, there are 499 JIB

corporate restaurants located in Texas, there are still 475

corporate restaurants located in States outside of Texas, not

including California. Kaufhold Decl. at ¶ 3. Although the Northern

District of Texas would be convenient for parties and witnesses

residing in or near Texas, it would be inconvenient for the named

class members and class members and witnesses not living near Texas. 

On balance, the access to proof weighs in favor of Plaintiffs'

choice of forum for the California class and weighs strongly in

favor of Defendant's choice of forum for the non-California class.

2. Convenience of the Witnesses and Ability to Compel

Unwilling Witnesses to Testify

Defendant again argues that, because many putative class

members and their supervisors work and reside in Texas, requiring

Case 4:06-cv-02857-CW Document 46 Filed 02/01/07 Page 7 of 11
United States District Court

For the 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 8

them to travel to this district to testify at trial would be

inconvenient. According to Defendant, the largest group of

potential witnesses is in Texas. Therefore, it also argues that, to

the extent that it is necessary to subpoena unwilling witnesses, the

Northern District of Texas is a more convenient forum. 

Plaintiffs argue that, because this a representative case, few

class members would be required to testify as witnesses. Regarding

testimony from potential unwilling witnesses, Plaintiffs argue that

not all witnesses called to testify will necessarily be from Texas,

because only a little over half of the JIB corporate restaurants

outside of California are in Texas. Furthermore, they argue that,

because Defendant's corporate headquarters is in San Diego,

California, the Northern District of California would be a more

convenient venue for both willing and unwilling witnesses'

testimony. On balance, these factors weigh slightly in favor of

Plaintiffs' choice of forum for the California class and strongly in

favor of Defendant's choice of forum for the non-California class.

3. Possible View of the Premises

Defendant argues that, because many of the corporate restaurant

premises are located in Texas, if it is necessary to view the

premises, venue in the Northern District of Texas would be more

convenient. However, because the claims against Defendant do not

concern the restaurant premises, it is unlikely that viewing the

premises will be necessary. This factor does not weigh in favor of

Case 4:06-cv-02857-CW Document 46 Filed 02/01/07 Page 8 of 11
United States District Court

For the 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 9

either forum.

4. Relative Court Congestion

Defendant argues that venue should be transferred because the

Northern District of Texas' docket is less congested than the

Northern District of California's. Plaintiffs do not address this

point. However, "these kinds of considerations should play a role

in venue shifting analysis only if the backlogs in the two courts

are so totally disproportionate that it is obvious that time to

trial would be radically longer in the court initially selected by

plaintiff." Linear Tech. Corp. v. Analog Devices, Inc., 1995 WL

225672, *4 (N.D. Cal. 1995). Defendant has not shown that the

backlogs in the Northern District of Texas and the Northern District

of California are disproportionate. Thus, this factor does not

weigh in favor of either forum. 

5. Local Interest in Having Localized Controversies

Decided at Home and Unfairness of Burdening

Citizens in an Unrelated Forum with Jury Duty

Defendant argues that the present case involves no claims that

arose in the Northern District of California and that Texas is the

location of the majority of the extant claims. It also contends

that it would be unfair to burden citizens of the Northern District

of California with jury duty when none of the claims arose in this

district.

Plaintiffs respond that the federal law claims of the

California class members have only been stayed, and not dismissed. 

Some of these claims arose in the Northern District of California. 

Case 4:06-cv-02857-CW Document 46 Filed 02/01/07 Page 9 of 11
United States District Court

For the 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 10

If the stay of the federal claims of the California class is lifted,

the claims would be resolved by this Court or the court to which the

action is transferred. Although there is a local interest in the

California class, there is no local interest in the claims of the

non-California class. These factors weigh in favor of Plaintiffs'

choice of forum for the California class and weigh in favor of

Defendant's choice of forum for the non-California class.

C. Weighing of Factors

For the California class, Plaintiffs show that they have an

interest, although minimal, in litigating in this district. 

Defendant must show that convenience or the interest of justice

outweighs Plaintiffs' interest in litigating in their chosen forum. 

Defendant does not meet this burden. None of the factors affecting

the convenience of a forum for the California class weigh in favor

of transfer. Plaintiffs' choice of forum for the California class

will not be disturbed. 

For the non-California class, some factors affecting the

convenience of a forum strongly weigh in favor of transfer to the

Northern District of Texas. Defendant meets its burden. Because

the balance of factors weighs in favor of Defendant, the claims of

the non-California class will be severed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

Pro. 21 and the venue for the non-California class will be

transferred to the Northern District of Texas. See, e.g., SB

Designs v. Reebok Int'l, Ltd., 305 F. Supp. 2d 888, 891 (N.D. Ill.

Case 4:06-cv-02857-CW Document 46 Filed 02/01/07 Page 10 of 11
United States District Court

For the 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 11

2004) (severing some claims and transferring them pursuant to

Section 1404(a)).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion to transfer venue

(Docket No. 33) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The claims

of the California class and the non-California class are severed. 

Defendant's motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of

Texas is GRANTED for the non-California class members; it is DENIED

for the California class members. The claims of the non-California

class are transferred to the Northern District of Texas; the claims

of the California class will stay in this district.

The case management conference scheduled for February 9, 2007

is vacated. A case management conference for the claims of the

California class will be held on July 27, 2007, at 1:30 p.m., at

1301 Clay Street, Oakland, Courtroom 2 (Fourth Floor). The Clerk

shall transfer the file to the Northern District of Texas and keep a

duplicate copy in this district.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 2/1/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-02857-CW Document 46 Filed 02/01/07 Page 11 of 11