Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03235/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03235-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Benavidez
Plaintiff
Sherman Green
Plaintiff
Grinnell Simplex Fire Protection
Defendant
Timothy Hitch
Plaintiff
Gary Jackson
Plaintiff
Matthew Le Bere
Plaintiff
Eddy Shelton
Plaintiff
Justin Shelton
Plaintiff
Simplex Grinnell, LP
Defendant
David Worsham
Plaintiff
Darrel Yost
Plaintiff

Document Text:

U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

UNIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

For the Northern District of CaliforniaUNIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY HITCH, MATTHEW LE BERE,

DAVID WORSHAM, MICHAEL

BENAVIDEZ, GARY JACKSON, EDDY

SHELTON, SHERMAN GREEN, DARREL

YOST, JUSTIN SHELTON, on behalf of

themselves and others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

SIMPLEX GRINNELL, LP, GRINNELL

SIMPLEX FIRE PROTECTION, and DOES 1

to 30, inclusive,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

No. C 05-03235 MHP

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

On July 11, 2005 plaintiffs Timothy Hitch, Matthew Le Bere, David Worsham, Michael

Benavidez, Gary Jackson, Eddy Shelton, Sherman Green, Darrel Yost, and Justin Shelton brought

this action against defendant Simplex Grinnell alleging violations of California Labor Code section

2810. Pending before this court is defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. In a

related action, Sprinklerfitters Union Local 709 et al v. Simplex Grinnell, LP et al, C 05-02469

MHP, this court granted defendant's motion to transfer venue to the Southern District pursuant to 28

U.S.C. section 1404(a). 

Although this court doubts the applicability of California Labor Code section 2810 in the

present action, the transfer of the related action and the minimal contacts of the parties with the

Northern District weigh against adjudication in this district. At the October 17, 2005 hearing,

plaintiffs' counsel conceded that all of the individual plaintiffs, with the exception of Timothy Hitch, 
U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

are the same as those in the related action and that they are employed in and are residents of the

Southern District. Although plaintiff Timothy Hitch resides in this district, as a non-employee of

defendant, his connection with the action is tenuous. Essentially for the same reasons as set forth in

the related action, this court deems it proper to transfer the present action to the Southern District. 

Accordingly, this action is hereby transferred to the Southern District on the court's own motion

pursuant to Local Rule 3-2(f). N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 3-2. 

The Clerk of Court shall transfer the file to the Clerk of Court for the United States District

Court for the Southern District of California and close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: October 26, 2005 

MARILYN HALL PATEL

District Judge

United States District Court 

Northern District of California