Summary
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue but granted the alternative motion to transfer the action to the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The court found that venue was proper in the Northern District because relevant reasonable-accommodation and alleged retaliation decisions occurred there, but concluded that the Central District was more convenient because the plaintiff resides and works there and relevant workplace evidence and witnesses are located there. The court did not rule on the defendant’s motions to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Holdings
- Venue was proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to plaintiff's claims occurred in the Northern District, including the San Francisco-based management officials' handling of the initial phases of plaintiff's reasonable-accommodation request and an alleged retaliatory reprimand.
- Transfer to the Central District of California was appropriate because that district was the more convenient and appropriate forum for the parties, witnesses, and evidence and better served the interests of justice.
Questions Presented
- Whether venue was proper in the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1).
- Whether the action should be transferred to the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Disposition
transferred
Cases Cited (23)
- Autodesk, Inc. v. Kobayashi + Zedda Architects Ltd., 191 F. Supp. 3d 1007, 1020 (N.D. Cal. 2016)(followed)
- Piedmont Label Co. v. Sun Garden Packing Co., 598 F.2d 491, 496 (9th Cir. 1979)(followed)
- Murphy v. Schneider National, Inc., 362 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2004)(followed)
- In re Hall, Bayoutree Associates, Ltd., 939 F.2d 802, 804 (9th Cir. 1991)(followed)
- Baeta v. Sonchik, 273 F.3d 1261, 1264-65 (9th Cir. 2001)(followed)
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964)(followed)
- Foster v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., No. C 07-04928 SI, 2007 WL 4410408, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2007)(followed)
- Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. United States District Court, 571 U.S. 49, 59 (2013)(followed)
- Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000)(followed)
- Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 23.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.