Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05275/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05275-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Aerotek, Inc.
Defendant
Elwood Nolan
Plaintiff
Quantum Global Technologies, LLC
Defendant

Document Text:

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

ELWOOD NOLAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

AEROTEK, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 4:19-cv-05275-KAW 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' 

MOTIONS TO TRANSFER VENUE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 9, 12

On August 23, 2019, Plaintiff Elwood Nolan filed the instant suit against Defendants 

Aerotek, Inc. and Quantum Global Technologies, LLC, alleging that he experienced race 

discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. (Compl. ¶ 1, Dkt. No. 1.) 

On September 18, 2019, Aerotek filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that venue in the 

Northern District of California is improper, or in the alternative, to transfer venue to the Northern 

District of Texas. (Aerotek’s Mot., Dkt. No. 9.) On September 25, 2019, Quantum also filed a 

motion to dismiss on the grounds that venue is improper, or, in the alternative, to transfer venue to 

the Northern District of Texas. (Quantum’s Mot., Dkt. No. 12.)

Upon review of the moving papers, the Court finds this matter suitable for resolution 

without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), and, for the reasons set forth below, 

GRANTS Defendants’ motions to transfer venue, and TRANSFERS the case to the United States 

District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

I. BACKGROUND

On February 10, 2017, Plaintiff Elwood Nolan began working as a Facilities Technician at 

Defendant Quantum Global Technologies, LLC’s (d/b/a QuantumClean) location in Carrollton, 

Texas. (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 31.) Plaintiff was placed at Quantum by a staffing agency, Defendant 

Case 4:19-cv-05275-KAW Document 20 Filed 10/23/19 Page 1 of 4
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

Aerotek, Inc. (Compl. ¶ 15.)

In July 2017, Plaintiff allegedly began experiencing harassment from his manager, Rolland 

Elliot. (Compl. ¶ 20.) Both Plaintiff and Mr. Elliott are African American. Id. at ¶ 21. This alleged 

harassment included Mr. Elliot using racial epithets when he was angry at Plaintiff and other 

African American employees. (Compl. ¶ 24.) Thereafter, Plaintiff complained of this behavior to 

his Aerotek recruiter, but she did not contact anyone at Quantum or take any other preventative 

action. (Compl. ¶¶ 26-27.) Plaintiff then requested that his recruiter transfer him to another 

worksite, but that request was denied. (Compl. ¶¶ 28-29.) 

On September 21, 2017, Quantum’s Vice President of Human Resources and Manager of 

Human Resources allegedly traveled to the Carrollton, Texas location from Fremont, California to 

discuss workplace harassment, bullying, and discrimination with Quantum employees, including 

Plaintiff, and encouraged employees to report workplace harassment. (Compl. ¶¶ 30-32.) 

Employees were promised that they would not face retaliation for speaking with the HR 

professionals. (Compl. ¶ 32.) Plaintiff reported the mistreatment he experienced at the hands of 

Mr. Elliott, but alleges that his complaint was “brushed off.” (Compl. ¶¶ 33-34.)

On September 26, 2017, Plaintiff was informed by his recruiter that he would be 

terminated as of November 12, 2017. (Compl. ¶ 36.) Prior to his complaint, Plaintiff had received 

positive reviews and had “exceeded expectations,” so the forthcoming termination was a surprise. 

(Compl. ¶ 37.) Mr. Elliott told Plaintiff that he was terminated for making a complaint against 

him, and that he “should not have went to HR.” (Compl. ¶ 42.) 

After his termination, Plaintiff alleges that Aerotek never attempted to re-staff him to any 

other position in retaliation for his complaint. (Compl. ¶¶ 46-47.)

On September 18, 2019, Aerotek filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that venue in the 

Northern District of California is improper or, in the alternative, to transfer venue to the Northern 

District of Texas. (Aerotek’s Mot., Dkt. No. 9.) On September 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed an 

opposition, in which he conceded that venue was improper in the Northern District of California 

and requested that the case be transferred to the Northern District of Texas. (Pl.’s Aerotek Opp’n, 

Dkt. No. 16.) Aerotek did not file a reply.

Case 4:19-cv-05275-KAW Document 20 Filed 10/23/19 Page 2 of 4
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

On September 25, 2019, Quantum also filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that venue 

is improper or, in the alternative, to transfer the case to the Northern District of Texas. (Quantum’s 

Mot., Dkt. No. 12.) On September 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed an opposition, in which he again 

conceded that venue was improper and requested that the case be transferred. (Pl.’s Quantum 

Opp’n, Dkt. No. 17.) On September 25, 2019, Quantum filed a reply. (Quantum’s Reply, Dkt. No. 

19.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A defendant may raise a motion to dismiss for improper venue under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(3) in its first responsive pleading or by a separate pre-answer motion. Once the 

defendant challenges venue, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that venue is proper. 

Piedmont Label Co. v. Sun Garden Packing Co., 598 F.2d 491, 496 (9th Cir. 1979). When 

considering a Rule 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss, the pleadings need not be accepted as true, and the 

court "may consider facts outside of the pleadings." Richardson v. Lloyd's of London, 135 F.3d 

1289, 1292 (9th Cir. 1998). If the court determines that venue is improper, it may dismiss the 

case, or, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer it to any district in which it properly could have 

been brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Dist. No. 1, Pac. Coast Dist. v. Alaska, 682 F.2d 797, 799 (9th 

Cir. 1982). 

Even if the court determines that venue is proper, it may transfer for the convenience of 

parties and witnesses. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In either case, the decision to transfer is within the 

discretion of the court. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(b); King v. Russell, 963 F.2d 1301, 1304 (9th Cir. 1992) 

(no abuse of discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) when it chose to dismiss, rather than transfer, 

for improper venue).

III. DISCUSSION

Defendants both move to dismiss the case for improper venue pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) or, in the alternative, transfer venue to the Northern District of Texas. 

(Aerotek’s Mot. at 4-6; Quantum’s Mot. at 6-9.) The court may, however, in the interest of 

justice, transfer the case to any district in which it properly could have been brought. 28 U.S.C. § 

1406(a); Dist. No. 1, Pac. Coast Dist. v. Alaska, 682 F.2d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 1982). 

Case 4:19-cv-05275-KAW Document 20 Filed 10/23/19 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Here, Plaintiff concedes that the case should have been filed in the Northern District of 

Texas, but that he had filed the case in this district because he had a good faith belief that his 

employee records were stored in Fremont, California, where he believed Quantum’s human 

resources department was located. (Pl.’s Aerotek Opp’n at 5; Pl.’s Quantum Opp’n at 5.) 

Additionally, Plaintiff contends that if the undersigned were to dismiss, rather than transfer, the 

case, he would be time-barred from refiling in the Northern District of Texas, because the 90-day 

period in which to file suit after receiving his right to sue letter has expired. (Pl.’s Aerotek Opp’n 

at 5-6; Pl.’s Quantum Opp’n at 5-6.)

In reply, Quantum argues that Plaintiff’s professed belief that the Northern District of 

California was a proper venue is unsupported and made in bad faith. (Quantum’s Reply at 2.) The 

undersigned, however, declines to assess the credibility of the representations of Plaintiff’s 

counsel and Quantum’s counsel. Indeed, based on the facts alleged, Plaintiff appears to have 

cognizable claims against both Defendants, and would be severely prejudiced if his case is timebarred for failure to file in the proper court. That Plaintiff may have believed that Quantum’s HR 

Department and personnel records were located in Fremont, California is reason enough for the 

undersigned to exercise its discretion to transfer the case to the Northern District of Texas rather 

than to dismiss for improper venue. (See Quantum’s Reply at 2-3.)

Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants’ motions to transfer venue.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motions to transfer venue 

and TRANSFERS the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

The Clerk of the Court shall transfer the case forthwith and terminate all motions and 

deadlines pending on the court docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 23, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:19-cv-05275-KAW Document 20 Filed 10/23/19 Page 4 of 4