Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05431/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05431-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc.
Defendant
Darnetta Wheat
Plaintiff

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DARNETTA WHEAT, on behalf of 

himself and all persons similarly 

situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., et al., 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 14-cv-05431-SC

ORDER TRANSFERRING VENUE TO 

THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF 

CALIFORNIA 

I. INTRODUCTION 

 Now before the Court is a stipulation to transfer venue filed 

by Defendant J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. ("JBH") and Plaintiff 

Darnetta Wheat. ECF No. 14 ("Stip."). Because "the court must 

evaluate the appropriate factors even though the parties now 

stipulate to the transfer," the Court reviews whether transfer is 

appropriate. See Tung Tai Grp. v. Fla. Transformer, Inc., No. 

5:11-cv-02389 EJD(HRL), 2011 WL 3471400, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 

2011) (citing White v. ABCO Eng'g Corp., 199 F.3d 140, 144 (3d Cir. 

Case 3:14-cv-05431-SC Document 16 Filed 04/15/15 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

For the Northern District of California 

1999)). For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds the 

transfer of venue to the Central District of California is 

appropriate, and therefore the stipulation is GRANTED AS MODIFIED 

by this order. 

 

II. BACKGROUND 

 This is a putative employment class action alleging various 

violations of state and federal law arising out of Defendant JBH's 

failure to pay wages and to reimburse employees for medical and 

physical examinations they were required to undergo. See ECF No. 

1-3 ("Compl.") ¶ 1. JBH is a provider of transportation and 

logistics services, and it employs a large number of truck drivers. 

Id. ¶¶ 5, 16-17. Plaintiff brings this purported class action on 

behalf of JBH's drivers. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of 

all JBH drivers nationwide for claims under the federal Fair Labor 

Standards Act and classes of California drivers for the state law 

claims. 

 Plaintiff originally filed this case in Alameda County 

Superior Court, but Defendant removed it to federal court on the 

basis of federal question jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

Section 1331, because some of Plaintiff's claims arise out of the 

federal Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties now request that the 

Court transfer venue to the Central District of California. 

 

III. LEGAL STANDARD 

 Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a), the Court may "[f]or the 

convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interests of 

justice . . . transfer any civil action to any other 

Case 3:14-cv-05431-SC Document 16 Filed 04/15/15 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

For the Northern District of California 

district . . . where it might have been brought." The Court must 

undertake an "'individualized, case-by-case consideration of 

convenience and fairness,'" and determine whether three elements 

are satisfied: (1) the propriety of venue in the transferor 

district, (2) whether the action could have been brought in the 

transferee district, and (3) whether the transfer will serve the 

interests of justice and convenience of the parties and witnesses. 

Tung Tai, 2011 WL 3471400, at *1 (quoting Jones v. GNC Franchising, 

Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000)). The Court weighs a 

series of factors in determining whether the third element is 

satisfied including plaintiff's choice of forum, the convenience of 

the parties and witnesses, ease of access to evidence, the 

familiarity of the potential fora with applicable law, feasibility 

of consolidation, local interests, and court congestion. Williams 

v. Bowman, 157 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 1106 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (citing 

Royal Queentex Enters. Inc. v. Sara Lee Corp., No. C-99-4787 MJJ, 

2000 WL 246599, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2000)). 

IV. DISCUSSION 

 First, the Court finds that the first two requirements for 

transfer are satisfied because venue is proper in this 'istrict, 

and the case could have been brought in the Central District of 

California. Because the action was originally filed in Alameda

County Superior Court, the case was properly removed to this &ourt. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (permitting removal "to the district court 

of the United States for the district and division embracing the 

place where such action is pending"). Furthermore, the action 

could have been brought in the Central District of California 

Case 3:14-cv-05431-SC Document 16 Filed 04/15/15 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

For the Northern District of California 

because the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in 

California, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to 

Plaintiff's claims took place in the Central District. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1391(a), (b)(2)-(3); Stip. at 1 (noting that JBH has 

offices in California and that JBH has employees and managers 

located in California). 

 In addition, the Court finds that transferring the action to 

the Central District of California will serve the convenience of 

the parties and witnesses and promote the interests of justice. 

The documents relevant to this lawsuit are kept in JBH's offices in 

South Gate, California (which is located in the Central District). 

JBH's employees and managers responsible for enforcing JBH's 

employment policies in California are also located there. Stip. at 

1. Additionally, even though Plaintiff's initial choice of forum 

was within the Northern District of California, most of JBH's 

California drivers are based out of South Gate. Id. Therefore, 

the plaintiff's choice of forum, convenience of the parties, and 

ease of access to evidence all suggest that the Central District is 

a more appropriate venue. 

 Accordingly, the Court finds that because venue is proper in 

this district, the action could have been brought in the Central 

District of California, and transferring the action to the Central 

District will serve the interests of justice and convenience of the 

parties and witnesses, this case satisfies all three requirements 

for a transfer of venue. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 3:14-cv-05431-SC Document 16 Filed 04/15/15 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

For the Northern District of California 

V. CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons set forth above the Court GRANTS the parties' 

stipulation and DIRECTS the Clerk to transfer this action to the 

Central District of California. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 15, 2015 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:14-cv-05431-SC Document 16 Filed 04/15/15 Page 5 of 5