Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00821/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00821-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rebecca Stambanis
Plaintiff
TBWA Worldwide, Inc. dba TBWA/Media Arts Lab
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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

REBECCA STAMBANIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TBWA WORLDWIDE, INC. DBA 

TBWA/MEDIA ARTS LAB, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 19-cv-00821-TSH 

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO 

THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF 

CALIFORNIA 

Re: Dkt. No. 14 

Plaintiff Rebecca Stambanis has sued Defendant TBWA Worldwide, Inc., which does 

business as TBWA/Media Arts Lab (“MAL”). First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶ 1, ECF No. 

1, Ex. A. She alleges that in March 2016, MAL recruited her to be its Chief Strategy Officer and 

run global advertising for its only client, Apple. Id. ¶ 12. Before agreeing to work at MAL, 

Stambanis informed the Head of Human Resources, Karine Shahar, that her partner would need 

legal status to be able to live in the United States. Id. ¶ 14. Shahar assured her that obtaining a 

visa would not be a problem. Stambanis also told MAL that while she could be in the office for a 

few days in April, she would need to have the remainder of the month to move her family from 

Portland to Los Angeles for her new job. MAL said that would not be a problem either. Thinking 

her concerns had been addressed, Stambanis signed an offer letter dated March 11, 2016. Id. ¶ 17. 

But both issues were problems. MAL pressured her to work full time in April and kept her 

so busy in Los Angeles in May and June that she was unable to move her family, instead staying 

in hotels and short-term housing in LA. Id. ¶¶ 18-21. The visa for her partner did not materialize, 

and MAL’s lawyers began to propose work arounds that Stambanis viewed as unethical. Id. ¶¶ 23, 

24. They also told her she should just marry her partner to resolve the visa situation. Id. ¶ 24. 

Stambanis threatened to resign effective at the end of July 2016 due to MAL’s inability to 

Case 3:19-cv-00821-TSH Document 28 Filed 05/03/19 Page 1 of 5
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 Californi

a

legitimately obtain the visa. This put MAL in a difficult situation because it needed her to get the 

company through the iPhone 7 launch in September and then help find her successor. Id. ¶ 26. 

MAL’s relationship with Apple had deteriorated in the previous couple of years, resulting in the 

loss of two Chief Strategy Officers and the high-profile termination of MAL’s Chief Executive 

Officer. Id. ¶ 12. Having Stambanis walk out the door at this critical time before the product 

launch would have further strained the relationship. Id. ¶ 26. To get Stambanis to immediately 

relocate her family from Portland to LA, stay through the end of 2016, and then work remotely for 

the first quarter of 2017, MAL agreed to a modified employment agreement with some additional 

provisions favorable to Stambanis. Id. ¶ 27. 

But it turns out that MAL’s leadership, in particular President Erika Hoholick and Creative 

Director Duncan Milner, were unhappy with Stambanis’s demands and with the new agreement. 

They began excluding her from meetings and decisions. Id. ¶ 30. The company’s leadership hired 

her replacement in mid-August, id. ¶ 32, and then on the same day as the iPhone 7 launch, Shahar 

and Chief Operating Officer Dave Colon accused her of bad-mouthing the company to Apple. Id. 

¶ 33. A few days later MAL fired her. Stambanis later realized that MAL’s leadership had been 

angry that she didn’t just marry her partner to resolve the visa situation and was furious about the 

amended employment agreement. Id. ¶ 34. 

Stambanis filed this lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court, alleging 18 causes of action 

concerning her employment and the termination. MAL removed to federal court based on 

diversity jurisdiction. ECF No. 1 (notice of removal). MAL has now moved to transfer the case 

to the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). 

“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.” 

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The section’s purpose is “to prevent the waste of time, energy and money 

and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense.” 

Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964) (internal quotation marks omitted) 

Assuming the case could have been brought in the proposed transferee district, “the district 

court has discretion to adjudicate motions for transfer according to case-by-case consideration of 

Case 3:19-cv-00821-TSH Document 28 Filed 05/03/19 Page 2 of 5
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 Californi

a

convenience and fairness.” Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(citations and quotation marks omitted). The Court must “weigh multiple factors in its 

determination whether transfer is appropriate in a particular case.” Id. They include: (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, (8) the ease of access 

to sources of proof, (9) the presence of a forum selection clause, and (10) the relevant public 

policy of the forum state. Id. at 498-99. 

We can take a few issues off the table. There’s no dispute this action could have been 

brought in the Central District of California. That is where MAL does business and is its only 

business location in California. The state that is most familiar with the governing law and the 

relevant public policy of the forum state tip in neither direction because this District and the 

Central District of California are both in California. And there is no forum selection clause. 

The remaining factors converge. The relevant witnesses are nearly all in Los Angeles 

County. A trial in San Francisco would be unjustifiably burdensome and expensive. “These 

individuals must take time out of their work and private time to travel to and from the place of 

trial, to live away from home and to wait around windowless corridors on call to testify. Back 

home, they have children to get to school, elderly parents to care for, jobs to do and lives to lead—

all of which must be managed somehow or put on hold.” In re Funeral Consumers Antitrust 

Litigation, No. C 05-01804 WHA, 2005 WL 2334362, *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2005). “Although 

lawyers tend to underestimate this burden, it is genuine, all the more so in a distant city. Even 

where a witness is an employee of a party and will be paid, the disruption is still a hard fact. The 

expenses of transportation, housing and meals, even if borne by a party, are nonetheless authentic 

outlays.” Id. 

Stambanis’s arguments to the contrary misunderstand her own claims. She argues that 

Apple is in this District and that all of her work at MAL was for Apple, including numerous trips 

Case 3:19-cv-00821-TSH Document 28 Filed 05/03/19 Page 3 of 5
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 Californi

a

to its Cupertino headquarters. She says there are several Apple employees who can testify about 

the quality of her work, Apple’s relationship with MAL, and MAL’s internal challenges. That 

may be true, but it’s not really what this case is about according to the First Amended Complaint. 

Stambanis’s claims relate to the promises MAL made her and her (alleged) shoddy treatment at 

the hands of specific people who are in the Central District of California. While Stambanis’s job 

responsibilities involved travel to Cupertino and working with Apple employees there, the 

misconduct she is complaining about happened in LA. 

Aside from the location of the witnesses, the relevant agreements were negotiated and 

executed in LA, the documentary evidence is for the most part also there, and almost everything 

relevant to the case happened there. None of the parties are here. Stambanis now lives in Oregon, 

and as noted, MAL’s only California office is in LA. 

There are only two factors that weigh even partially in favor keeping the case here. First, 

this is the venue Stambanis chose. However, “[w]here a plaintiff does not reside in the forum, the 

Court may afford plaintiff’s choice considerably less weight.” Vu v. Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc., 

602 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1156 (N.D. Cal. 2009). More generally, “[i]f the operative facts have not 

occurred within the forum of original selection and that forum has no particular interest in the 

parties or the subject matter, the plaintiff’s choice is entitled only to minimal consideration.” 

Pacific Car & Foundry Co. v. Pence, 403 F.2d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 1968). The Court therefore 

gives little deference to Stambanis’s chosen venue. 

Second, Apple is here, and while its employees are not the focus of this case, there will 

likely be a couple of third-party depositions concerning MAL’s claim that Stambanis bad-mouthed 

it. For discovery purposes, it is equally expensive to depose Apple’s witnesses no matter where 

the case is pending. For trial, the parties could subpoena those witnesses as a matter of right if the 

case remained here, but could subpoena them to attend trial in the Central District of California 

only after obtaining a court order made after a finding that attending trial there “would not” cause 

the witnesses to “incur substantial expense.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 45(c)(1)(A) & (B)(ii). However, 

this consideration is not enough to justify keeping the case here when nearly every other factor 

counsels in favor of transfer. The testimony of Apple’s witnesses can be presented at trial by 

Case 3:19-cv-00821-TSH Document 28 Filed 05/03/19 Page 4 of 5
5 

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 Californi

a

videotaped deposition in the Central District of California, which is also how that testimony would 

most likely be presented at a trial in this District. And as noted, the Central District could order 

their personal attendance at trial if the requirements of Rule 45(c)(1)(B)(ii) were satisfied. 

MAL’s motion to transfer is GRANTED. The Court ORDERS this case transferred to the 

Central District of California. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

 

THOMAS S. HIXSON 

United States Magistrate Judge 

May 3, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00821-TSH Document 28 Filed 05/03/19 Page 5 of 5