Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

William Wolin, Individually, and On Behalf of v. Wells Fargo Bank

February 12, 2013

WILLIAM WOLIN, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL 20 PUBLIC SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND AS AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT ("PAGA"),
PLAINTIFF,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, A NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Maxine M. Chesney United States District Court Judge

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO TRANSFER CASE TO THE 21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2 counsel, hereby submit this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Transfer Case to the United 3 States District Court for the Central District of California. action complaint against Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("WFB") and Wells Fargo & Co. 7 Subject to the approval of the Court, the parties, by and through their undersigned

STIPULATION

WHEREAS, Plaintiff William Wolin ("Plaintiff") has brought this putative class ("WFC") (collectively "Defendants") seeking to represent a putative national collective action 8 class of current and former loan underwriters and a putative California Rule 23 class of current 9 former loan underwriters; 10 11 deny that this case is proper for collective or class action treatment; 12

WHEREAS, Defendants deny the material allegations asserted by Plaintiff and WHEREAS, Plaintiff was employed by WFB to underwrite brokered loans from February 22, 2012 to July 25, 2012 in WFB's Southern California loan origination center, located 14 within the Central District of California, and Plaintiff never worked for any Defendant in the 15 Northern District of California; 16

17 resided within the Central District of California when he was employed by WFB in 2012; 18 19 WHEREAS, Plaintiff currently resides in the Central District of California and WHEREAS, Defendants have represented to Plaintiff and provided authority that WFB does not have its principal place of business in the Northern District of California, and in 20 particular, that the lending division of WFB is not headquartered in the Northern District of 21 California; 22

23 by WFC; 24

25 transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought "[f]or 26 the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice," in order to "prevent the waste 27

'of time, energy, and money' and 'to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against 28 unnecessary inconvenience and expense.'" Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964)

WHEREAS, Defendants have represented to Plaintiff that he was not employed WHEREAS, 28 U.S.C. section 1404(a) grants district courts the discretion to (quoting Continental Grain Co. v. The Barge FBL-585, 364 U.S. 19, 26-27 (1960)); 2

WHEREAS, Defendants agree that Plaintiff could have brought this action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California because Defendants conduct 4 business throughout California, including in the Central District, and because Plaintiff worked for 5

WFB in the Central District, which is where "a substantial part of the events or omissions giving 6 rise to the claim occurred," making venue in the district proper (28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), (c)); 7 WHEREAS, Defendants agree that they are subject to personal jurisdiction in the United States District Court for the Central District of California; 10 the extent they are in California, are in the Central District, and that transfer to the Central District 11 will therefore ease discovery and other litigation-related costs, and is in the interests of justice; 12 13 dates; 14 5 have any effect on the underlying litigation or merits of the case, and this stipulation shall not be 16 construed to modify, limit or otherwise affect the allegations in Plaintiff's complaint, including, 17 but not limited to, Plaintiff's alleged class definition; and 18

19 respect to this stipulation, and specifically, Plaintiff shall not be subject to any costs or sanctions 20 for initiating this case in the Northern District of California, and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.