United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO TRANSFER RE: ECF NO.
TIGAR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Defendant Information Resources, Inc.'s
(“IRI”) Motion to Transfer Venue. For the reasons
set forth below, the Court denies the motion.
Iram Bakhtiar, brings this putative collective and class
action against her former Employer, IRI. ECF No. 13 1 ¶
1. Bakhtiar resides in Sunnyvale, California. Id.
¶ 8. IRI is a Delaware corporation that is headquartered
in Chicago, Illinois. Id. ¶ 9; ECF No. 24 at 7.
Bakhtiar worked remotely for IRI as a Client Service Manager
from June 2011 to September 2016. ECF No. 13 ¶ 8.
Bakhtiar alleges that she and the other putative class
members are non-exempt employees under state and federal wage
and hour laws. Id. ¶ 2. She alleges that she
and the other putative class members should have been
classified as non-exempt employees and received overtime pay
consistent with the requirements of those laws. Id.
REQUEST FOR JUDICAL NOTICE
to Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b), “[t]he court may
judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable
dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial
court's territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be
accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy
cannot reasonably be questioned.” IRI requests, and
Bakhtiar does not oppose, judicial notice of the judicial
caseloads of the United States District Courts for the
Northern California and the Northern District of Illinois.
The Court will take judicial notice of these caseloads.
the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of
justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to
any other district where it might have been brought.”
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The purpose of section 1404(a) 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 citation
and quotation marks omitted). A motion for transfer lies
within the broad discretion of the district court, and must
be determined on an individualized basis. See Jones v.
GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000)
(“Under § 1404(a), the district court has
discretion ‘to adjudicate motions for transfer
according to an individualized, case-by-case consideration of
convenience and fairness.'” (quoting Stewart
Org. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988))).
moving party, Defendant bears the burden of showing that
transfer is warranted. Id. at 499. The statute
defines three factors that courts must consider: the
convenience of the parties, the convenience of the witnesses,
and the interests of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The
Ninth Circuit requires that courts consider a variety of
factors in determining whether to transfer an action. See
Jones, 211 F.3d at 498; Decker Coal Co. v.
Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir.
1986). The relevant factors are: (1) plaintiff's choice
of forum, (2) convenience of the parties, (3) convenience of
the witnesses, (4) ease of access to the evidence, (5)
familiarity of each forum with the applicable law, (6)
feasibility of consolidation of other claims, (7) any local
interest in the controversy, and (8) the relative court
congestion and time of trial in each forum. Barnes &
Noble v. LSI Corp., 823 F.Supp.2d 980, 993 (N.D. Cal.
Venue in the Target District
is only appropriate if the action could have been brought in
Northern District of Illinois. “A district court is one
in which an action could have been brought originally if (1)
it has subject matter jurisdiction; (2) defendants would have
been subject to personal jurisdiction; and (3) venue would
have been proper.” Duffy v. Facebook, Inc.,
No. 16-CV-06764-JSC, 2017 WL 1739109, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 4,
2017) (citing Hoffman, 363 U.S. 333, 343-44 (1960).
IRI argues, and Bakhtiar does not dispute, that this action
could originally have been brought in the Northern District
of Illinois. Proper venue and personal jurisdiction exist in
the Northern District of Illinois because IRI maintains its
corporate headquarters in Chicago, Illinois. See 28
U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2); Int'l Shoe Co. v.
Washington, 326 US, 316-317 (1945). Accordingly, the
Court finds that this case could have been brought in the
Northern District of Illinois.