Deborah Ann Warner v. Surefox Consulting LLC
3:21-cv-07473
N.D. Cal.Feb 22, 2022Background
- Warner worked for Surefox North America (Dec 2018–Sep 2020) as Chief of Staff / Director of Account Management and alleges sexual assault by Director of Operations Brian Sweigart, a pattern of sex discrimination, unequal pay, misclassification as exempt, and retaliatory termination after EEOC/DFEH complaints.
- Warner worked from Texas during parts of her employment; defendants contend key decisions were made in Texas by Pete Twedell and that records/witnesses are in Texas.
- Plaintiff alleges key decisionmakers (Sweigart and Szott) and HR/operations were based in San Francisco and that many adverse employment decisions were made or implemented from the San Francisco headquarters.
- Defendants moved under Rule 12(b)(3) to dismiss for improper venue invoking Title VII’s mandatory venue language (arguing Texas is the proper forum), and alternatively sought transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the Western District of Texas.
- The court found venue proper in the Northern District of California under both Title VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000e‑5(f)(3)) and the general venue statute (28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)), and denied transfer under § 1404(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper venue under Title VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000e‑5(f)(3)) | Venue is proper in N.D. Cal because unlawful employment practices and decisions (compensation, terms, retaliation, HR actions) were made in San Francisco by Sweigart and Szott | Venue must be in the Western or Eastern District of Texas because Warner worked from Texas, Twedell (in Texas) made the termination/PIP decisions, and effects/records are in Texas | Venue in N.D. Cal. is proper: plaintiff showed decisions and a substantial portion of events occurred in California; Title VII allows venue where decisions are made as well as where effects are felt (Passantino) |
| Proper venue under general statute (28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)) | Substantial part of events/omissions occurred in N.D. Cal (headquarters, HR, operations, decisionmakers) | (Defendants focused on Title VII; did not press a § 1391 challenge) | § 1391(b)(2) also satisfied for each claim because a significant portion of relevant events occurred in N.D. Cal |
| Whether Title VII venue rule controls all claims | Plaintiff: distinction immaterial here; Title VII bases and § 1391 both satisfied so all claims may proceed in N.D. Cal | Defendants: Title VII venue provision should apply across the case to require Texas forum | Court: distinction not outcome-determinative; venue proper under both statutes so dismissal not warranted |
| Transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) | Warner’s forum choice entitled to great weight; Surefox was headquartered in SF for much of her employment; courts here are familiar with the laws; defendants offered no compelling witness/access proof | Defendants: Western District of Texas is more convenient; many witnesses live in Texas; recent change of headquarters to Texas supports transfer | Transfer denied: factors (plaintiff’s forum choice, parties’ contacts, access to proof, familiarity with law) do not favor transfer; defendants failed to show a demonstrably more convenient forum |
Key Cases Cited
- Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Prods., 212 F.3d 493 (9th Cir. 2000) (Title VII venue proper where decision is made and where its effects are felt)
- Argueta v. Banco Mexicano, S.A., 87 F.3d 320 (9th Cir. 1996) (courts may consider facts outside the pleadings on Rule 12(b)(3) venue motions)
- Piedmont Label Co. v. Sun Garden Packing Co., 598 F.2d 491 (9th Cir. 1979) (plaintiff bears burden to establish proper venue)
- Atlantic Marine Const. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Tex., 571 U.S. 49 (2013) (standards for venue-transfer and forum-selection analyses)
- Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2000) (list of factors for § 1404(a) transfer analysis)
- Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730 (9th Cir. 1987) (plaintiff’s forum choice entitled to substantial weight)
- Stebbins v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 413 F.2d 1100 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (Title VII venue should be limited to districts concerned with the alleged discrimination)
- United Tactical Sys. LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., 108 F. Supp. 3d 733 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (multiple-claim plaintiffs must establish venue proper as to each claim)