YURY ADAMOV, individually, and on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated current and former employees of PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, Plaintiffs,
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants.
LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, District Judge.
Plaintiff is a former Attest Associate of Pricewaterhouse-Coopers LLC ("PwC"). He has filed this putative class action lawsuit against PwC alleging violations of California labor laws, including failure to pay overtime wages. The class he seeks to represent are similarly situated Attest Associates who were employed by PwC after the class notice went out in Campbell v. PwC, 2:06-cv-2376 (E.D. Cal.) (Karlton, J.).
A. Motion To Transfer Venue.
The transfer statute provides:
For the convenience of 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 purpose of the transfer statute "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).
Whether to grant a venue transfer is within the broad discretion of the district court, id., § 1404(b), which adjudicates motions for transfer "according to an individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.'" Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc. , 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir.) (quoting Stewart Org. v. Ricoh Corp. , 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988)), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 928 (2000); CFTC v. Savage , 611 F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979) ("weighing of the factors for and against transfer involves subtle considerations and is best left to the discretion of the trial judge"). The district court's discretion is guided by the factors specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and relevant case law: (1) the convenience of the parties; (2) the convenience of the witnesses; and (3) the interests of justice. Id . § 1404(a).
Specific factors the district court may consider are "the plaintiff's choice of forum;... the respective parties' contacts with the forum;... the contacts relating to the plaintiff's cause of action in the chosen forum;... the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums;... the availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses; and... the ease of access to sources of proof." Jones , 211 F.3d at 498-99; see also Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Comm'n v. NFL , 89 F.R.D. 497, 499 (C.D. Cal. 1981), aff'd, 726 F.2d 1381 (9th Cir.) (listing and applying factors), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 990 (1984). In determining whether the interests of justice are best served by transferring or retaining the case, the court looks to, among other things, the need to conserve scarce judicial resources. See Irving v. Lennar Corp., 2013 WL 1308712 (E.D. Cal.2013) (Mueller, J.).
The burden is on the party seeking transfer to show "by particular circumstances that the transferor forum was inappropriate." Savage , 611 F.2d at 279. It is not enough for a moving party merely to show that it prefers another forum nor will transfer be ordered if the result is merely to transfer to a forum equally convenient or inconvenient. Barrack , 376 U.S. at 645-46.
B. Motion To Strike.
The rule governing the striking of pleadings provides:
The Court may strike from a pleading * * * any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). The court does not grant such a motion "unless it is clear that the matter to be stricken could have no possible bearing on the subject matter of the litigation." L.H. v. ...