Lopez v. Beavex Inc
4:15-cv-00550
N.D. Cal.May 20, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Leobardo Lopez filed a putative nationwide class action under the FCRA alleging BeavEx obtained consumer reports for employment screening without proper disclosures/authorizations; Lopez applied for a job in Union City, California.
- Defendants: BeavEx (headquartered in Atlanta, GA; ~90 locations, ~600 employees) and Proforma (principal place Purcellville, VA; limited California revenue).
- Defendants moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the case from the Northern District of California to the Northern District of Georgia.
- Defendants submitted declarations that key witnesses, former employees, third-party witnesses, and most relevant physical documents are located in Atlanta; less than 10% of Proforma’s revenue comes from California.
- Plaintiff resides in the Northern District of California but sought only statutory and punitive damages (no individual actual damages), and provided no evidence identifying witnesses or documentary proof located in this district.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether transfer to N.D. Ga. under §1404(a) is warranted | Lopez chose this forum and resides here; venue proper in Northern District of California | Convenience of parties/witnesses and majority of documentary evidence favor Georgia; Georgia is a proper forum | Transfer granted — convenience and access factors outweigh plaintiff's forum choice |
| Weight to give plaintiff's choice of forum | Plaintiff’s residence supports deference | Because this is a nationwide class and operative facts center on defendants, plaintiff’s choice merits little deference | Plaintiff’s forum choice entitled to minimal consideration |
| Convenience of witnesses and parties | Plaintiff did not identify witnesses in this district | Key witnesses (former employees, third parties) and documents are in Atlanta; some witnesses beyond subpoena power here | Convenience of witnesses strongly favors transfer |
| Access to evidence and documents | Plaintiff argued generally for California forum (but offered no evidence of local documents) | Most documentary evidence and records relevant to FCRA practices are kept in Atlanta | Ease of access to proof favors transfer |
| Relative court congestion and applicable law familiarity | No claim that N.D. Cal. is uniquely suited | Georgia has slightly faster median disposition; neither forum has superior familiarity with FCRA law | Slightly favors transfer (congestion); law familiarity neutral |
Key Cases Cited
- Gulf Oil Co. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (establishes private/public interest factors for forum non conveniens and transfer analysis)
- Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495 (identifies factors courts weigh on §1404(a) motions)
- Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 843 (discusses deference to plaintiff’s choice of forum)
- Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730 (plaintiff’s choice of forum entitled to less deference in nationwide class actions)
- Pacific Car & Foundry Co. v. Pence, 403 F.2d 949 (forum deference reduced when operative facts did not occur in chosen forum)
- A.J. Indus., Inc. v. United States Dist. Court, 503 F.2d 384 (convenience of witnesses central to transfer inquiry)
- E. & J. Gallo Winery v. F. & P. S.p.A., 899 F. Supp. 465 (moving party’s burden to present affidavits identifying key witnesses and testimony)