Lucas v. Daiichi Sankyo Company, Inc., No. 4:2011cv00772 - Document 16 (N.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER Granting Defendant's 10 Motion to Transfer Venue. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/24/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/24/2011)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Lucas v. Daiichi Sankyo Company, Inc. Doc. 16 1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 DONOVAN LUCAS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 No. C 11-0772 CW ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE (Docket No. 10) Plaintiff, v. DAIICHI SANKYO COMPANY, INC.; and DOES 1 TO 50, inclusive, Defendants. ________________________________/ 15 16 Plaintiff Donovan Lucas filed the present class complaint in 17 Alameda County Superior Court, alleging violations of California 18 law governing overtime pay and rest and meal break periods. 19 February 18, 2011, Defendant Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. (DSI)1 removed 20 the lawsuit to federal court. 21 transfer the lawsuit from this District to the Central District of 22 California, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). 23 Plaintiff opposes the motion. 24 parties' submissions, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion. Docket No. 1. On DSI now moves to Docket No. 10. Having considered all of the 25 26 27 28 1 Defendant DSI has answered the suit, Docket No. 4, and has stated that Plaintiff incorrectly named Daiichi Sankyo Company, Inc., its Japanese parent company, as Defendant in his complaint, Def.'s Mot. to Transfer Venue at 1 n.1. Dockets.Justia.com BACKGROUND 1 2 DSI is a pharmaceutical company which markets certain drugs 3 and conducts research to develop new therapies. 4 represent a class of "All persons who are employed or have been 5 employed as 'Pharmaceutical Representatives' by defendants in the 6 Lucas seeks to State of California and for at least four (4) years prior to the 7 filing of this action." Compl. ¶ 21. Lucas alleges that 8 9 "Pharmaceutical Representative" means all persons employed by United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Defendant whose title is or was "Sales Representative," "Senior 11 Sales Representative," "Executive Sales Representative," or 12 "Senior Executive Sales Representative." 13 14 Compl. ¶ 2. DSI employs representatives to inform physicians about its products and to convince them to write prescriptions for those 15 products. DSI asserts that "sales representatives" are 16 categorized by the group of health care providers to whom they 17 18 sell particular groupings of products, such as products marketed 19 to primary care physicians, hospital-marketed products, and 20 products marketed to specialists. 21 Support of DSI's Mot. to Transfer, at ¶ 6. 22 "sales professional tiered position categories" include: "Sales 23 Declaration of Craig Mangean in According to DSI, its Representative," "Sales Representative II," "Sales Specialist," 24 "Senior Sales Specialist," "Senior Sales Professional," "CV 25 26 Specialty Sales Representative," "Senior CV Specialty Sales 27 Representative," "Hospital Representative," "Senior Hospital Sales 28 Representative," and "Hospital Sales Specialist." 2 Id. 1 From December 2006 through March 2011, DSI has employed at 2 least 206 "sales representatives" in California. 3 these employees, 107 have resided in the Central District of 4 California. 5 representatives have resided in the Northern District of 6 California. Id. Id. Id. at ¶ 9. Of During that same time, forty-four sales The sales representatives are supervised by 7 district managers. As of March 2011, nine of the twenty district 8 9 managers charged with supervising California sales representatives Id. at ¶ 10. Substantially United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 are located in the Central District. 11 more district managers reside in the Central District than in any 12 other district in California. 13 14 Id. The Daiichi Sankyo Administrative and Corporate Division2 is headquartered in New Jersey, and the DSI Human Resources 15 department charged with supporting DSI sales operations is also 16 located in that state. Id. at ¶¶ 2, 11. The DSI Vice President 17 18 19 20 responsible for overseeing the department lives in New Jersey. Id. at ¶ 5. The Human Resources department includes managers and staff 21 members who are personally familiar with the job duties, positions 22 and procedures applicable to Lucas and the putative class members. 23 Id. at 11. Payroll records and files, official personnel files, 24 position description questionnaires, job descriptions, promotional 25 26 27 28 materials, policies and procedures (including those relating to 2 The record does not further explain the relationship between this Division and DSI. 3 1 employment, not limited to compensation, overtime, compliance, and 2 product samples), compensation records, incentive compensation 3 plans, training materials, benefit plans and other documents 4 applicable to Lucas and putative class members are all located in 5 New Jersey. 6 Id. at 13. DSI does not maintain any office space for employees, such as 7 sales representatives, in California. Id. at 8. The sales 8 9 representatives primarily rely on laptop computers and home United States District Court For the Northern District of California offices. 11 regarding prescription-writing habits of key physicians on their 12 call lists and visiting the offices of these physicians. 13 Lucas worked as a primary care sales representative in the Palm 14 Id. Their job duties entail analyzing information 10 Springs area from July 2008 through November 2010. Id. Id. at 12. 15 Lucas's counsel, except for one attorney located in New York, and 16 DSI's counsel are located in the Central District. 17 18 19 LEGAL STANDARD Title 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides, "For the convenience of 20 the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district 21 court may transfer any civil action to any other district or 22 division where it might have been brought." 23 A district court has broad discretion to adjudicate motions for transfer on a case-by- 24 case basis, considering factors of convenience and fairness. See 25 26 Stewart Org. Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988); Sparling 27 v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 639 (9th Cir. 1988). 28 Factors the court may consider include (1) the plaintiff's choice 4 1 of forum; (2) convenience of the parties; (3) convenience of the 2 witnesses; (4) relative ease of access to the evidence; 3 (5) familiarity of each forum with the applicable law; 4 (6) feasibility of consolidation with other claims; (7) any local 5 interest in the controversy; and (8) the relative court congestion 6 and time of trial in each forum. Saleh v. Titan Corp., 361 F. 7 Supp. 1152, 1156 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (citing Jones v. GNC 8 9 Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000), and United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th 11 Cir. 1986)). 12 13 14 The movant bears the burden of justifying the transfer by a strong showing of inconvenience. Decker Coal, 805 F.2d at 843. The motion may be denied if the increased convenience to one party 15 is offset by the added inconvenience to the other party. Id. As 16 a general rule, the plaintiff's choice of forum is given 17 18 significant weight and will not be disturbed unless other factors See 28 U.S.C. 19 weigh substantially in favor of transfer. 20 § 1404(a). 21 minimal value where the plaintiff is not a resident of the 22 judicial district in which the suit commenced. 23 However, the plaintiff's selection of forum has Armstrong v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 1996 WL 382895, *1 (N.D. Cal.) (citing Grubs 24 v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc., 189 F. Supp. 404, 409 (D. Mont. 25 26 27 1960) and Pacific Car & Foundry Co. v. Pence, 403 F.2d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 1968)). In addition, when the plaintiff represents a 28 5 1 2 class, its choice of forum is given less weight. 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987). 3 4 5 6 Lou v. Belzberg, DISCUSSION The parties do not dispute that this action could have been brought in the Central District of California. DSI concedes that the Northern District and Central District of California are 7 equally familiar with the law applicable to this action, and makes 8 9 no argument that relative court congestion in the Northern United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 District or the potential consolidation of claims favors 11 transferring this action to the Central District. 12 argues that the remaining factors, primarily related to the issue 13 of convenience, support transferring the case to the Central 14 However, DSI District. 15 DSI's central contention is that Lucas and a majority of 16 sales representatives reside in the Central District and, thus, 17 18 venue in that district is more convenient for the parties and 19 witnesses, and serves to ease access to evidence. 20 that most witnesses relevant to Lucas's individual claim that he 21 was misclassified as exempt are in the Palm Springs area, and 22 because most putative class members are in the Central District, 23 DSI contends the relevant witnesses are predominantly located there as well. 24 In addition, DSI asserts that documents related to Lucas's and 25 26 most putative class members' claims are primarily located in 27 either the Central District or New Jersey. 28 that the Central District has a stronger interest in the 6 Finally, DSI argues 1 2 3 controversy because a majority of the putative class members reside in that district. Lucas's choice of forum in this action is entitled to reduced 4 deference because he seeks to represent a class, Lou, 834 F.2d at 5 739, and he has filed his complaint in a district outside of the 6 district in which he is domiciled, Forrand v. Fed. Express Corp., 7 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10858, *7 (N.D. Cal.) (holding that 8 9 deference owed to a nonresident plaintiff's choice of forum is United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 "substantially reduced."). 11 this case in the Central District compared to the Northern 12 District favors granting DSI's motion to transfer venue. 13 14 The relative convenience of hearing First, DSI asserts that venue in the Central District is most convenient for the parties. DSI points to records indicating that 15 fifty-two percent of its California sales representatives reside 16 in the Central District, while approximately twenty-one percent 17 18 reside in the Northern District and the remainder reside in the 19 Southern and Eastern Districts. 20 University of Phoenix, Inc., a more significant number of putative 21 class members in this case reside in the Central District compared 22 to the Northern District. 23 In contrast to Adoma v. 711 F. Supp. 2d 1142, 1151 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (holding that, where forty percent of potential class 24 members were residing in the Eastern District compared to sixty 25 26 percent in the Central District, transfer of venue to the Central 27 District was not warranted). Furthermore, it is not clear in 28 Adoma whether the named plaintiff lived in or outside of the 7 1 Eastern District, where the suit was filed, and the court did not 2 consider that factor in deciding to deny the motion to transfer. 3 Nor did the Adoma court consider where the parties' counsel were 4 located. 5 Central District, and his and DSI's counsel, except for one 6 Here, however, it is undisputed that Lucas lives in the attorney located in New York, are also based in that district. 7 DSI argues that litigating the case in the district in which Lucas 8 9 and counsel for parties are located will be substantially more United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 convenient. 11 Central District is a more convenient venue for the parties. 12 13 14 Accordingly, DSI has made a strong showing that the As a second factor, the Court considers whether hearing the case in the Central District will be more convenient for the witnesses in this action. Many of the witnesses most relevant to 15 resolving Lucas's complaint are based in DSI's Human Resources 16 department. Personnel in this department are likely the most 17 18 familiar with Lucas's and putative class members' job 19 responsibilities, as well as DSI's work schedule policies, 20 timekeeping and payroll procedures and practices. 21 Human Resources department personnel are located in New Jersey, 22 the convenience of these witnesses favors neither the Northern 23 District nor the Central District. Because the However, substantially more 24 district managers reside in the Central District than in any other 25 26 district in California. District managers supervise putative 27 class members, and are likely to know about their work schedules 28 and responsibilities. Although inconvenience to witnesses who are 8 1 employed by a party and may be compelled to testify may be 2 discounted, STX, Inc. v. Trik Stik, Inc., 708 F. Supp. 1551, 1556 3 (N.D. Cal. 1988), it is nonetheless of some relevance. 4 convenience of the witnesses supports transferring this case to 5 the Central District. 6 The Third, access to proof, apart from the witnesses' and 7 parties' testimony, adds some support to transferring this case to 8 9 the Central District. DSI admits that documentary evidence, such United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 as payroll records and other files, is stored in New Jersey. 11 Thus, neither the Northern District nor the Central District 12 provides any comparative advantage in accessing those documents. 13 However, because Lucas and most putative class members reside in 14 the Central District, evidence they possess is more conveniently 15 accessed in the Central District, although modern technology 16 likely minimizes the expense or inconvenience of transporting such 17 18 19 20 evidence. Accordingly, access to proof slightly favors transferring this action to the Central District. Finally, DSI argues that the interests of justice are served 21 by transferring this case to the Central District. 22 Northern District's interest in the action is not insubstantial, 23 While the it appears that the Central District has a greater interest in the 24 case because Lucas and most putative class members live there. 25 26 Moreover, the fact that Lucas does not reside in the Northern 27 District, the vast majority of putative class members reside 28 outside of this district and the parties' counsel are in Southern 9 1 California evidence forum-shopping by Lucas. Evidence of forum- 2 shopping by a plaintiff supports a defendant's motion to transfer 3 venue. 4 5 6 See e.g., Forrand, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10858, *7-11. Lucas's choice of forum is entitled to little deference. DSI has made a strong showing that convenience and the interest of justice favor transferring this action to the Central District. 7 CONCLUSION 8 9 DSI's motion to transfer this action to the Central District United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 is GRANTED. Docket No. 10. The case management conference 11 currently scheduled for June 14, 2011 is VACATED. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 16 Dated: 5/24/2011 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
