Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04893/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04893-13/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P.
Defendant
Randall Thill
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

1

Although the term “Investment Representative” is not used in the complaint, in their briefs both

parties refer to Thill as an “Investment Representative” of Edward Jones.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RANDALL THILL,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD D. JONES & CO., L.P.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

Case No. C-05-4893 JCS

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

[Docket No. 45]

I. INTRODUCTION

On Friday, September 8, 2006, Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue and, in the

Alternative, Motion to Coordinate (the “Motion”), came on for hearing. For the reasons stated

below, the Motion is DENIED as to Defendant’s request to transfer the action and GRANTED as to

the request for coordination. 

II. BACKGROUND

This purported class action was filed in Alameda County Superior Court on October 20,

2005. It was removed to this Court on November 29, 2005. Plaintiff, Randall Thill, is a former

employee of Defendant Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. (“Edward Jones”). Complaint, ¶ 5. He was

employed as a securities broker with the title of Investment Representative (“IR”).1

 He alleges that

Edward Jones violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and California state law by

classifying IRs working in California as exempt from payment of overtime compensation. 

Complaint, ¶¶ 11-16. Thill lives in San Diego County and maintained an office there when he

Case 3:05-cv-04893-JCS Document 94 Filed 09/18/06 Page 1 of 8
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

worked as an IR. Declaration of Timothy Huskey in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Transfer

and, in the Alternative, Motion to Coordinate (“Huskey Decl.”), ¶ 8; see also Opposition at 8

(stating that Thill lives in San Diego County). Edward Jones maintains its headquarters in St. Louis,

Missouri. Declaration of Cynthia A. Doria in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Transfer and, in the

Alternative, Motion to Coordinate (“Doria Decl.”), ¶ 2.

Two other later-filed actions challenging Edward Jones’ policy regarding payment of

overtime compensation to IR’s are pending outside this district. First, on March 16, 2006, Plaintiff

James Ellis filed a complaint, styled as a class action, in the Western District of Pennsylvania

alleging that Edward Jones is violating Pennsylvania law by failing to pay overtime compensation to

its IRs in Pennsylvania. See Huskey Decl., Ex. D (Complaint, James E. Ellis v. Edward D. Jones &

Co., L.L.P. (“Ellis”)) & E (MDL brief) at 2 (stating that Ellis complaint was filed March 16, 2006). 

Second, Plaintiff Gerald Booher filed in the Central District of California a purported class action

on behalf of all IRs employed by Edward Jones throughout the United States. See Huskey Decl., Ex.

B (First Amended Complaint, Gerald Booher v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. (“Booher”). Booher

asserts that Edward Jones’ policy violates the FLSA. Id. Although Booher filed his complaint in the

Central District of California, he resides in Cary, North Carolina. Huskey Decl., Ex. C (Stipulation

and Order Transferring Case to the Western District of Pennsylvania Pursuant to 1404(a)( “Booher

Transfer Order”)), ¶ 4.

Soon after he filed his complaint, the plaintiff in Ellis filed a motion before the Judicial Panel

on Multidistrict Litigation seeking transfer of all three actions to the same district “for centralization

and pretrial coordination or consolidation.” Ellis asserted that these actions should be transferred

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 because all three actions had common facts and centralization would

further the convenience of the parties and witnesses and would promote the just and efficient

conduct of the actions. Huskey Decl., Ex. E (MDL brief) at 2. In an order filed June 16, 2006, the

MDL Panel denied the motion. Huskey Decl., Ex. F (MDL Decision). The Panel explained the

reasons for its decision as follows:

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel

finds that Section 1407 centralization presently would neither serve

the convenience of the parties and witnesses nor further the just and

Case 3:05-cv-04893-JCS Document 94 Filed 09/18/06 Page 2 of 8
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

efficient conduct of the litigation. In this docket containing just three

actions, movants have failed to persuade us that any common

questions of fact and law are sufficiently complex and/or numerous to

justify Section 1407 transfer under the current circumstances. 

Alternatives to transfer exist that can minimize whatever possibilities

there might be of duplicative discovery and/or inconsistent pretrial

rulings. See, e.g., In re Eli Lilly and Company (Cephalexin

Monohydrate) Patent Litigation, 446 F. Supp. 242, 244 (J.P.M.L.

1978); see also Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 20.14

(2004).

Id.

On July 20, 2006, Booher was transferred to the Western District of Pennsylvania pursuant to

the stipulation of the parties. Huskey Decl., Ex. C (Booher Transfer Order). On August 22, 2006, 

Booher was reassigned to Judge Kim Gibson, who is also presiding over Ellis. Declaration of

Timothy M. Huskey, With Exhibits, in Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to

Transfer (“Huskey Reply Decl.”), Ex. A (Order Reassigning Case).

In the Motion, Edward Jones argues that this action should be transferred to the Western

District of Pennsylvania as well, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Edward Jones argues that transfer

is in the “interest of justice” because centralization of all three cases will prevent waste, duplication

of effort and the risk of inconsistent outcomes. Edward Jones further asserts that Thill’s choice of

forum should be given little weight because Thill does not reside in this district and did not work as

an IR in this district. Finally, Edward Jones asserts that transfer will serve the convenience of the

parties and the witnesses. 

In support of its assertion that transfer will promote judicial efficiency, Edward Jones points

out that the main substantive issue in all three cases – whether Edward Jones should have paid its

IRs overtime – is identical. Edward Jones further points to the fact that this action is a Rule 23 class

action, requiring that putative class members opt out to avoid participation, whereas the other two

actions are collective actions under 28 U.S.C. § 216(b), requiring that putative class members opt in

if they wish to participate. As a result, Defendant argues, California IRs – who are encompassed in

both the Booher nationwide class and in the Thill class – will receive conflicting and confusing

notices, telling them both that they must opt in and opt out to participate unless the cases are

centralized. More broadly, centralization will ensure consistency in communications with class

Case 3:05-cv-04893-JCS Document 94 Filed 09/18/06 Page 3 of 8
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

members in the three cases. Edward Jones also asserts that centralization of the three lawsuits will

allow the parties to eliminate inconsistent deadlines in the three actions and will facilitate settlement.

With respect to the deference that is normally afforded the plaintiff’s choice of forum,

Edward Jones asserts that Thill’s choice of forum should be disregarded because Thill has no

connection with this district and was forum shopping when he filed this action in Alameda County.

Finally, Edward Jones argues that most of the witnesses and documents that Plaintiff is likely

to rely on are in St. Louis and virtually none are here. Therefore, it asserts, transferring the case to

the Western District of Pennsylvania will be more convenient for the parties.

In his Opposition, Thill asserts that transfer will not advance the interest of justice or the

convenience of the parties and that Thill’s choice of forum should be given at least some deference

because numerous putative class members likely reside in this district. On the first issue, Thill

points out that the MDL Panel already concluded that transfer is not in the interest of justice. Thill

also argues that the danger of inconsistent communications with class members is not a problem,

citing to a declaration filed in support of his opposition by counsel of record in Booher, Gerald

Wells. See Declaration of Gerald D. Wells III in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s

Motion to Transfer (“Wells Decl.”). Wells states as follows:

Even though the current complaint in Booher alleges a nationwide

class with respect to its alleged FLSA claims, Booher will not seek to

include any California-based IRs in any proposed opt-in class to be

certified. If Booher is certified as a Rule 216(b) opt-in collective

action, counsel for Plaintiff Booher will ensure that the class is defined

to exclude California-based IRs, and further will ensure that

California-base[d] IRs are not mailed any notice related to certification

of the opt in class. It is Booher’s intent to seek to represent all IRs

represented by Edward Jones outside California only as far as his

FLSA claims are concerned.

Wells Decl., ¶ 3. 

Thill also asserts that transfer would not be in the interest of justice because the case involves

several unique issues, many of which turn on California state law. In particular, in this action, in

contrast to Ellis and Booher, the court will need to resolve whether Thill will be permitted to

proceed under Cal, Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, thus allowing him to certify an opt-out class under

Rule 23. If Thill does proceed under Rule 23, he argues, the certification standard will be

Case 3:05-cv-04893-JCS Document 94 Filed 09/18/06 Page 4 of 8
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

completely different, thus eliminating the potential for inconsistent outcomes. In this case, Thill

argues, the court also will be required to determine whether any California exemptions apply. 

Finally, Thill notes that his second theory of liability is based on California Labor Code § 2802 and

California case law prohibiting employers from passing on business expenses to their employees.

Regarding the convenience of the parties, Thill disputes the contention of Edward Jones that

most of the evidence and witnesses are outside the district, pointing out that much of the evidence in

the case will be obtained by deposing the California IRs. For these IRs, Thill asserts, a transfer to

Pennsylvania would be extremely inconvenient. Further, travel to Pennsylvania would be extremely

burdensome to Thill and would not be particularly convenient to the many individuals employed by

Edward Jones in St. Louis who are likely to be witnesses in the case. In addition, Thill argues, none

of the witnesses, parties or evidence are located in the proposed transferee forum. Nor is a

Pennsylvania court likely to be familiar with the many California law issues raised in Thill’s action.

Thill asserts that his forum choice should be given some deference even if it is a class action,

pointing to evidence that Edward Jones has 95 branch offices within 50 miles of San Francisco and

500 branch offices in California, giving California an interest in the outcome of this litigation.

In its Reply, Edward Jones asserts that the Wells Declaration, rather than showing that there

is no possibility of inconsistent outcomes, illustrates the danger of allowing this action to proceed

separately from the other two. In particular, Edward Jones asserts, the fact that Booher’s attorney

stated in a declaration in this action that the class in that case would not include California IRs but

did not file any pleading in the Booher action amending the complaint to reflect such a limitation

indicates that the plaintiffs are likely to take inconsistent positions when it serves their interests. 

Edward Jones rejects Thill’s assertion that the MDL Panel already concluded that transfer is

not in the interest of justice, arguing that the MDL Panel expressly stated that the parties should use

“alternative procedures,” of which a § 1404(a) transfer is one. In addition, Edward Jones asserts that

circumstances have changed since the MDL Panel ruled on the motion to consolidate because the

Booher case has been transferred to the Western District of Pennsylvania. Finally, Edward Jones

reiterates that the potential for inconsistent outcomes regarding the main substantive issue in the

case, whether IRs should be paid overtime, is a strong factor in favor of transfer.

Case 3:05-cv-04893-JCS Document 94 Filed 09/18/06 Page 5 of 8
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

 The parties do not dispute that the action could have been brought in the Western District of

Pennsylvania. 

6

III. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a case may be transferred “for the convenience of the

parties of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice” to “any other district or division where

the action might have been brought.”2 A party seeking transfer must make “a strong showing . . . to

warrant upsetting the plaintiff’s choice of forum.” Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co.,

805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986).

In determining whether to transfer an action pursuant to § 1404(a), the court must balance a

number of case-specific factors, “including the plaintiff’s initial choice of forum, convenience to the

parties and witnesses, access to evidence, and the interests of justice.” London and Hull Maritime

Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Eagle Pacific Ins. Co., 1996 WL 479013 (N.D. Cal., August 14, 1996). “The

‘interests of justice’ consideration is the most important factor a court must consider, and may be

decisive in a transfer motion even when all other factors point the other way.” Id. The pendency of

related actions in the proposed transferee forum is a “highly persuasive factor” in determining

whether a transfer is in the interest of justice. Wiley v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc., 2005 WL 1910934

(N.D. Cal., August 10, 2005) at *3; see also Continental Grain Co. v. Barge F.B.L. - 585, 364 U.S.

19, 26 (1960)( holding that “[t]o permit a situation in which two cases involving precisely the same

issues are simultaneously pending in different district courts leads to the wastefulness of time,

energy and money that § 1404(a) was designed to prevent”).

Other factors considered by courts in determining whether a case should be transferred under

§ 1404(a) are: “(1) the location where the relevant agreements were negotiated and executed, (2) the

state that is most familiar with the governing law, (3) the plaintiff's choice of forum, (4) the

respective parties’ contacts with the forum, (5) the contacts relating to the plaintiff’s cause of action

in the chosen forum, (6) the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums, (7) the

availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses, and (8) 

Case 3:05-cv-04893-JCS Document 94 Filed 09/18/06 Page 6 of 8
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

the ease of access to sources of proof.” Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-499 (9th

Cir. 2000). 

Although the plaintiff’s choice of forum generally is given “great weight,” less weight is

given to the choice of forum where the plaintiff represents a class. Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730,

739 (9th Cir. 1987). In determining the weight to be given the plaintiff’s choice of forum in a class

action, the court should consider the parties’ contacts with the forum, including those relating to the

plaintiff’s cause of action. Id. If the operative facts in the case did not occur in the forum, the forum

has no interest in the parties or the subject matter and the plaintiff’s choice of forum is entitled to

little consideration. Id.

B. Consideration of Factors

Edward Jones’ strongest argument in favor of transfer is that it is in the interest of justice

because two cases that address almost identical issues are already pending in the Western District of

Pennsylvania. Coordination of the three actions clearly makes sense and the possibility of

inconsistent results arguably supports transfer of the action for trial (rather than simply coordinating

pretrial proceedings). The need for coordination regarding class notice is also clear.

Nonetheless, a number of factors persuade the Court that coordination with the court in the

Western District of Pennsylvania, rather than transfer, is appropriate. First, this action was the first

of the three actions to be filed, is brought on behalf of a class of California plaintiffs, and,

notwithstanding the significant overlap between the cases, raises unique questions of California law. 

Under these circumstances, Defendant bears a heavy burden to show that its concerns regarding

duplication of effort and coordination require a transfer that will deprive Plaintiffs of a California

forum. Defendant has not met that burden. Rather, the Court finds that its concerns can be

adequately addressed through coordination between the parties and with the one other court

involved.

Second, it is apparent that transfer to the Western District of Pennsylvania will not be more

convenient for any of the parties: no relevant documents, witnesses, or parties are located in the

Western District of Pennsylvania. In fact, the only connection between this case and that district is

the fact that the two other cases are being heard there. 

Case 3:05-cv-04893-JCS Document 94 Filed 09/18/06 Page 7 of 8
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

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Motion is DENIED as to the request to transfer the action to

the Western District of Pennsylvania. The Motion is GRANTED as to the request for coordination. 

As stated in the Court’s September 11, 2006 Order, counsel in all three cases shall meet and

confer and provide the Court with a proposed coordination order no later than September 29,

2006. A further Case Management Conference to address this issue has been set for October 6,

2006, at 1:30 p.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 18, 2006

 

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:05-cv-04893-JCS Document 94 Filed 09/18/06 Page 8 of 8