Mays v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
5:17-cv-07174
N.D. Cal.Mar 19, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Lerna Mays, a Los Angeles (Central District) resident, sued Wal‑Mart in the Northern District of California asserting seven California wage‑and‑hour claims based on work at two Wal‑Mart stores in Baldwin Hills and Baldwin Park (both in the Central District).
- Plaintiff filed the putative statewide class action on December 18, 2017 and attempted to relate the case to Magadia (a separate Wal‑Mart class action) but the court denied relation and Magadia proceeded separately.
- Wal‑Mart moved to transfer venue to the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); plaintiff opposed.
- Key factual points favoring transfer: plaintiff, lead counsel for both parties, and likely non‑party store witnesses are located in the Central District; the operative employment events occurred in the Central District.
- The court found documentary evidence location neutral, court congestion slightly favored transfer, and Magadia’s presence in the Northern District did not justify keeping the case here.
- The court granted Wal‑Mart’s motion and ordered transfer to the Central District of California.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case could have been brought in the Central District | Mays did not dispute transferability | Wal‑Mart argued the Central District is proper because plaintiff and events are there | Could have been brought there — threshold satisfied |
| Weight of plaintiff’s choice of forum | Plaintiff argued choice deserves considerable deference | Wal‑Mart argued deference is diminished because plaintiff resides outside Northern District, claims arose elsewhere, and this is a putative class | Deference reduced; favors transfer |
| Convenience of parties and witnesses | Northern District equally convenient; identified tech employees and plaintiff’s expert in Northern District | Central District more convenient: plaintiff, both parties’ counsel, and likely non‑party witnesses (store employees) are in Central District | Convenience of parties and witnesses favors transfer |
| Public‑interest factors and other justice considerations (including local interest and court congestion) | Northern District’s familiarity via Magadia and no strong local interest differential | Central District has greater local interest (events occurred there); slightly less congested courts; Magadia not sufficiently related to warrant keeping case | Public‑interest factors overall neutral to slightly favor transfer |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (U.S.) (§ 1404(a) prevents waste and protects parties from inconvenience)
- Continental Grain Co. v. Barge FBL‑585, 364 U.S. 19 (U.S.) (purpose of transfer statute to avoid unnecessary inconvenience)
- Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335 (U.S.) (case‑transfer threshold: could the action have been brought in transferee district)
- Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (U.S.) (transfer analysis requires case‑by‑case consideration of convenience and fairness)
- Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir.) (lists specific § 1404(a) factors to consider)
- Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834 (7th Cir.) (public‑interest factors and weight of plaintiff’s forum choice)
- Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730 (9th Cir.) (reduced deference when operative facts did not occur in chosen forum and for class representatives)
- Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 409 (9th Cir.) (threshold inquiry whether action might have been brought in transferee district)