United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO
TRANSFER RE: DKT. NO. 22
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge.
before the Court is Defendant Informatica, LLC's motion
to transfer venue to the Western District of Texas. Dkt. Nos.
22, 22-1 (“Mot.”). Plaintiff Joseph Flynn does
not oppose the transfer. Dkt. No. 27. The Court
GRANTS Defendant's motion to transfer
and TRANSFERS this action to the Western
District of Texas.
the convenience of the 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 transfer
statute exists “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) (citation omitted). The moving party
bears the burden of showing that the transferee district is a
“more appropriate forum.” See Jones v. GNC
Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2000).
And the district court has broad discretion in deciding
whether or not to transfer an action. See Ventress v.
Japan Airlines, 486 F.3d 1111, 1118 (9th Cir. 2007)
(“[T]he district court's decision to change venue
is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Weighing of the factors
for and against transfer involves subtle considerations and
is best left to the discretion of the trial judge.”)
(citations and quotations omitted).
filed this collective action complaint against Defendant for
failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the
FLSA. Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.”). Plaintiff is a
citizen of Texas and worked for Defendant in its Austin,
Texas location. Compl. ¶¶ 7-8. Defendant is a
Delaware limited liability company with its headquarters in
Redwood City, California. Dkt. No. 22-3 at ¶ 3. The
putative FLSA collective is defined as:
[A]ll inside all inside sales employees (including Business
Development Managers, Inside Sales Representatives, Sales
Development Representatives, or other positions with similar
job titles and/or duties) (collectively “Inside Sales
Representatives”) who work or have worked for
Informatica anytime from three years prior to the filing of
this action through the present (the “Collective
Compl. ¶ 2. At the time of the filing of this motion,
there were two opt-in Plaintiffs: Alison Blakely, who worked
in Defendant's Austin location, and Thomas Chard, who
worked in the Redwood City location. Dkt. No. 22-3 at
¶¶ 13, 15.
unopposed motion, Defendant claims that the case could have
been brought in the Western District of Texas. Mot. at 10-11.
The transferee district has federal question subject matter
jurisdiction because the complaint alleges a violation of the
FLSA Id. at 11. According to Defendant, that court
has specific personal jurisdiction over it because Defendant
“actually conducts business and maintains offices in
Texas, ” and “employed Plaintiff, Opt-In
Plaintiff Blakley and the vast majority of the other putative
collective members in Texas.” Id. at 11. And
venue properly lies in the Western District because Defendant
is subject to personal jurisdiction in that district.
respect to whether the considerations of convenience and
fairness favor transfer, Defendant represents that the
convenience of all parties and non-party witnesses favors
transferring this action because it is the “situs of
the material events giving rise to this lawsuit.”
Id. at 15. Specifically, Defendant claims that the
inside sales efforts were predominately run out of the
Austin, Texas office, id. at 9; the “vast
majority of the other putative collective members” are
in Texas, id. at 11; during the relevant period,
Defendant employed only six inside sales representatives in
California, and those six reported to the VP of Sales in
Austin and were terminated or transferred “just one
week into the potential statutory period, ”
id. at 9; the supervisors are all in Texas and
decisions concerning compensation and classification were
made from the Texas office, id. at 14; and employee
witnesses “critical to this matter” reside in and
around Austin, id. at 16. Further, Defendant
contends that because “Austin, Texas is the place where
decisions concerning the alleged wrongdoing concerning job
classifications and pay were made, ” the Western
District of Texas has a substantial interest in the case.
Mot. at 19.
does not oppose the motion, and the Court finds transfer is
Court GRANTS the unopposed motion to
transfer. Dkt. No. 22. The Clerk of Court shall
TRANSFER this case to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Texas, and close
the file. The Court also TERMINATES AS MOOT
the parties' stipulation to cancel the case management
conference. Dkt. No. 32.