Garcia et al v. 3M Company, No. 0:2010cv00110 - Document 74 (D. Minn. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER granting 47 MOTION to Transfer Case filed by 3M Company. Signed by Judge Whyte on 11/13/09. (rmwlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2009) [Transferred from California Northern on 1/14/2010.]

Download PDF

Garcia et al v. 3M Company Doc. 74 1 2 3 4 E-Filed: 11/16/09 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 12 13 14 ARTHUR J. GARCIA, RONALD K. BROOKS, BETTY JEAN NORMAN, RODERICK VOLD, ROBERT ELANDER, AND JOHN LYNN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, No. C-09-01943 RMW ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE [Re Docket No. 47] 15 Plaintiffs, 16 v. 17 3M COMPANY, 18 Defendant. 19 20 Defendant 3M Company's motion to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) came on 21 for hearing before the court on September 25, 2009. Plaintiffs oppose defendant's motion. The 22 court has read the moving and responding papers and considered the arguments of counsel. For the 23 reasons set forth below, the court grants defendant's motion for change of venue. 24 I. BACKGROUND 25 On May 4, 2009, the six named plaintiffs in this suit filed a putative class-action complaint 26 against defendant 3M Company ("3M") alleging that 3M engaged in an interwoven set of personnel 27 actions designed to elevate younger employees into the company's leadership and to marginalize and 28 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER. C-09-01943 RMW AKT/ter Dockets.Justia.com 1 remove older employees beginning with employee performance appraisals and extending to other 2 personnel actions negatively affecting employees age 46 and older. Compl.¶ 1. Pursuant to the 3 Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), as amended by the Older Worker 4 Benefit Protection Act ("OWBPA"), plaintiffs allege age discrimination on behalf of themselves and 5 other persons similarly situated. Compl.¶ 2. 29 U.S.C. § 621, 29 U.S.C. § 626(f). Plaintiffs 6 proposed two classes for certification: a "Declaratory Judgment Class" and an "ADEA Collective 7 Action" class. Compl. ¶ 71, 91 and 101. 8 A related age discrimination lawsuit, Whitaker v. 3M Co., No. 62-C4-04-012239, is 9 currently pending in Minnesota state court. Mot. at 4. The Minnesota state lawsuit is brought under 10 the Minnesota Human Rights Act ("MHRA") but attacks the same 3M policies and practices at issue 11 in the instant case. Id. The Minnesota trial court granted class certification, however, on April 28, 12 2009, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the trial court holding it had erred "both by failing to 13 require proof of certification requirements by a preponderance of the evidence and by failing to 14 resolve factual disputes relevant to class-certification requirements." See Whitaker v. 3M Co., 2009 15 WL 1118951 at 7 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2009). The case was then remanded to determine class 16 certification under the proper standard. The instant federal action was filed with this court less than 17 one week after the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued its remand order. Mot. at 5. 18 19 II. ANALYSIS Defendant brings this motion to transfer on the grounds that the District of Minnesota is a 20 more appropriate venue and is more convenient for the parties and witnesses than the Northern 21 District of California. Mot. at 6. 3M contends that transferring the action to the District of 22 Minnesota is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) because a related lawsuit is already underway in 23 Minnesota, virtually all witnesses and documents are located in Minnesota or closer to St. Paul than 24 this court, the operative events occurred either in Minnesota or 3M workplaces, most of the putative 25 class members work in Minnesota or closer to St. Paul than this court, and any injunctive relief, if 26 granted, would most easily be monitored by the court in Minnesota. Mot. at 1. Plaintiffs oppose the 27 motion, arguing that defendant has not met its burden of demonstrating that the convenience of the 28 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER. C-09-01943 RMW AKT/ter 2 1 parties and witnesses and the interest of justice favor transfer of venue to the District of Minnesota. 2 Opp. at 1. 3 Section 1404(a) provides: "For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of 4 justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might 5 have been brought." In ruling on a motion to transfer, a court may consider such factors as: (1) the 6 plaintiffs' choice of forum, (2) convenience to the parties, (3) convenience to the witnesses, (4) ease 7 of access to the evidence, (5) familiarity of each forum to the applicable law, (6) the feasability of 8 consolidation with other claims, (7) any local interest in the controversy, and (8) the relative court 9 congestion and time of trial in each forum. Jones v. GNC Franchising, 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th 10 11 Cir. 2000). Section 1404(a) limits transfer to courts where the action might have been brought. Hoffman 12 v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 343-44 (1960). The transferee court must: (1) be able to exercise personal 13 jurisdiction over the defendants, (2) have subject matter jurisdiction over the claim, and (3) be a 14 proper forum. Id. In the present case, the parties do not dispute that the action might have been 15 brought in the District of Minnesota. Turning to the applicable factors: 16 17 A. Plaintiffs' Choice of Forum The burden falls on the moving party to demonstrate that matters of convenience and the 18 interest of justice weigh heavily in favor of transfer. Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 19 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). The Northern District of California is plaintiffs' choice of forum. 20 However, the weight given to the plaintiffs' choice of forum diminishes when the plaintiffs reside 21 outside the chosen forum. Gemini Capital Group v. Yap Fishing Corp., 150 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th 22 Cir. 1998). Where plaintiffs' choice of forum is largely fortuitous, such as in class actions, where 23 putative class members reside in many different states, the plaintiffs' choice of forum is given less 24 weight. See In re Warrick, 70 F.3d 736, 740 (2d Cir. 1995); Georgouses v. Natec Res., Inc., 963 F. 25 Supp. 728, 730 (N.D. Ill. 1997); Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987). Only two of 26 the named plaintiffs reside in California. Opp. at 3. The other named plaintiffs live in Texas, 27 Minnesota and the Southern District of California. Id. The remaining potential class members are 28 nationwide. Id. Plaintiffs cite Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp. and argue that in class based ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER. C-09-01943 RMW AKT/ter 3 1 employment discrimination cases, plaintiffs' choice of forum is afforded less deference only when a 2 named plaintiff lacks contacts with the district. Opp. at 3, citing 372 F. Supp. 2d 530, 538 (N.D. 3 2005). However, Ellis was decided under Title VII's special venue provision, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e- 4 5(f)(3), which provides greater deference "as a matter of law" to choice of forum in Title VII class 5 action cases. Since this is not a Title VII case, the greater deference the court provided in Ellis is not 6 applicable. Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit has established that courts should disregard a plaintiff's 7 forum choice where the suit is a result of forum-shopping. See Alltrade, Inc., v. Uniweld Products, 8 Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 628 (9th Cir. 1991). One could rationally infer forum shopping here, based on 9 plaintiffs' filing in California less than one week after remand in Minnesota. Accordingly, this factor 10 11 12 does not weigh in favor of retaining the action in the Northern District of California. B. Convenience of Witnesses The convenience of witnesses has been called the most powerful factor governing the 13 decision to transfer a case. Florens Container v. Cho Yang Shipping, 245 F. Supp. 2d 1086, 1092 14 (N.D. Cal. 2002). To meet the burden of demonstrating that transfer is in the convenience of the 15 witnesses, "the party seeking transfer must specifically list the evidence and witnesses on which the 16 party intends to rely in the transferee district, along with a general statement of the topics of each 17 witness' testimony." Moore's Federal Practice - Civil § 111.13 (2009). Absent such a showing, the 18 motion should be denied. Id. In judging the weight to be given to a plaintiffs' choice of forum, 19 "consideration must be given to the extent both of the defendant's business contacts with the chosen 20 forum and of the plaintiff[s'] contacts, including those relating to [plaintiffs'] cause of action." 21 Pacific Car and Foundry Co. v. Pence, 403 F.2d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 1968). Defendant attached 22 Exhibits 1-12 to its motion which provide a list and graphic representations of the locations of 23 specific witnesses, and the location of evidence. 3M contends that many of 3M's witnesses and the 24 concentration of documents relevant to the claims asserted in the complaint are located in 25 Minnesota. Mot. at 8. Specifically, the 3M human resource witnesses, who developed the 26 challenged practices and policies and who have knowledge of 3M's experiences with their 27 implementation reside in Minnesota. Id. Additionally, the 3M business unit employees who 28 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER. C-09-01943 RMW AKT/ter 4 1 modified and implemented the recommended practices and who also have knowledge of the 3M 2 pattern and practice with regard to these policies reside in Minnesota. Id. 3 Plaintiffs assert that the EEOC investigation and the involvement of the EEOC's San 4 Francisco District Office is a sufficient contact with this district. Opp. at 4. In its opposition, 5 plaintiffs list five class members who filed claims with EEOC offices in Minneapolis, San Francisco, 6 and Missouri and whose claims were consolidated and transferred to the EEOC office in San 7 Francisco. Opp. at 1. Plaintiffs argue that given the San Francisco office of the EEOC's continued 8 investigation into the age discrimination claims, severing those ties by moving the litigation to 9 Minnesota would frustrate an important connection between the EEOC and the litigation. Id. As 10 noted by defendant, however, the EEOC is not a witness and has nationwide offices, including an 11 office in Minnesota. Defendant has named witnesses for whom its choice of forum is more 12 convenient. Accordingly, the convenience of witnesses weighs in favor of transfer. 13 14 C. Convenience of the Parties Defendant argues that the District of Minnesota is a more appropriate forum because both 15 plaintiffs and defendant have stronger contacts with the District of Minnesota than the Northern 16 District of California. 3M's principal place of business is in Minnesota and it is more convenient for 17 3M to litigate in Minnesota than in California. Plaintiffs assert that named plaintiffs Arthur Garcia 18 and Ronald Brooks's primary residences are California, and the case is brought on behalf of former 19 employees who were employed primarily outside of Minnesota. Opp. at 1. Plaintiffs contend 20 further that given electronic document production, the costs of discovery will be unaffected by the 21 location of forum and therefore, location of evidence has no bearing on transfer. Opp. at 5. 22 Likewise, the ease with which witnesses can be deposed either near their residences or at a location 23 convenient to the parties makes any inconvenience to witnesses minimal whether the action is 24 venued in Minnesota or California. Plaintiffs assert this factor is neutral and therefore the litigation 25 ought to remain in California, plaintiffs' choice of forum. Id. 26 In considering the convenience of the two parties in this action the court is compelled to take 27 into account related factors, such as the potential for disruption to the parties' business and the 28 parties' relative financial means. Plaintiffs, situated throughout the United States include residents ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER. C-09-01943 RMW AKT/ter 5 1 of this district and the District of Minnesota. Approximately 2,044 of 4,728 putative class members 2 who signed releases (the "Declaratory Judgment" putative class) reside or had last known addresses 3 in Minnesota. Reply at 5, Exhibits 1-3. Approximately 32 reside in this district. Id. For the ADEA 4 class, approximately 8,490 of 18,653 putative class members reside or had last known addresses in 5 Minnesota while barely more than 100 reside in this district. Id. Given these statistics on plaintiffs, 6 and that defendant is situated in Minnesota the convenience of the parties favors transfer. 7 8 9 D. Where the Events Occurred and Local Adjudication Defendant argues Minnesota has a strong local interest in deciding this controversy given that 3M is a significant employer and corporate citizen of Minnesota. Mot. at 14. In its opposition 10 plaintiffs assert that 3M's contacts with Minnesota will enhance advantages 3M already enjoys. 11 Opp. at 8. Plaintiffs argue that confusion will arise among lay persons and potential class members 12 by blurring the state and the federal causes of action. Id. Plaintiffs' argument is not persuasive and 13 offers no cogent reason against adjudicating this action in Minnesota. When an action involves an 14 incident occurring in a particular locale, there is a public interest in having the controversy 15 adjudicated in that locale, rather than in a remote forum. Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 16 511 (1947). The local public in the District of Minnesota presumably has a strong interest in the 17 litigation and an interest in having the trial in their view. Id. Plaintiffs cite no specific local 18 influence other than knowledge of the company that would hamper a fair trial. Mot. at 14. The 19 Northern District of California's interest does not extend as forcefully to the class as a whole, as the 20 District of Minnesota with the largest concentration of plaintiffs and a stronger interest in ensuring 21 non-discriminatory management of corporation. Ellis, 372 F. Supp. 2d at 543. Given 3M's 22 presence in Minnesota, plaintiffs' residences in Minnesota, the large amount of evidence and 23 witnesses in Minnesota and the pendency of the Whitaker action in Minnesota, the public's interest 24 and preference for local adjudication weighs in favor of transfer. 25 26 E. Enforceability of Judgment 3M argues the District of Minnesota would best be able to monitor compliance with possible 27 injunctive relief and therefore weighs in favor of transferring the case. Although the relative 28 enforceability of the judgment in the respective forums is a factor to consider, it is generally taken ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER. C-09-01943 RMW AKT/ter 6 1 into account under the common-law doctrine. Mot. at 13 citing Law Bulletin Pub., Co. v. LRP 2 Publ'ns Inc. 992 F. Supp. 1014, 1021 (N.D. Ill. 1998). In Section 1404(a) convenience transfers, 3 when both forums are federal district courts, this factor has little relevance because it is unlikely that 4 there would be any significant difference in the difficulty of enforcing a judgment rendered by one 5 federal forum or the other. Moore's Federal Practice - Civil § 111.13 (2009). 6 7 F. Judicial Economy The final factor discussed by the parties is judicial economy. Defendant argues that judicial 8 economy interests would be served if the present action is transferred to Minnesota. Mot. at 15. 9 Defendant contends that although the suits cannot be consolidated, transfer will allow possible 10 consolidation of discovery. Id. Additionally defendant asserts that transfer will more easily allow 11 the state court to resolve issues common to both actions before the federal case proceeds. Id. citing 12 Bally Mfg. Corp. v. Kane, 698 F.Supp. 734, 739 (N.D. Ill. 1988). Plaintiffs assert that because the 13 two cases cannot be consolidated any "beneficial osmosis to be derived" from transfer is a fiction. 14 Opp. at 7. Even though consolidation with the state claim would not be possible this court considers 15 the practicalities of making the trials easy, expeditious and economical. This case is based on 16 federal law and both this court and the District of Minnesota would be equally familiar with the 17 applicable law. Given the arguments in favor of transfer to Minnesota the court finds it to be more 18 prudent to grant the motion to transfer the claims against 3M to Minnesota. 19 As the examination of the factors above illustrates, defendant has met its relevant burden of 20 proof and has established that transferring this action to the District of Minnesota is appropriate 21 under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). 22 23 24 III. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, 3M's motion to transfer the instant action to the District of Minnesota is granted. 25 26 27 DATED: 11/13/09 RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge 28 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER. C-09-01943 RMW AKT/ter 7 1 2 THIS SHALL CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WAS PROVIDED TO: 3 Counsel for plaintiff: 4 Daniel Benjamin Kohrman Email: dkohrman@aarp.org 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Laurie A McCann Email: lmccann@aarp.org Michael D Lieder Email: mlieder@sprengerlang.com Roberta Louise Steele Email: RLS@gdblegal.com Steven Marshall Sprenger Email: ssprenger@sprengerlang.com Teresa Demchak Email: dem@gdblegal.com Thomas J Henderson Email: thenderson@sprengerlang.com Thomas W. Osborne Email: tosborne@aarp.org 16 17 18 19 20 21 Counsel for defendant: Martha Corcoran Luemers Email: eFilingPA@dorsey.com Paul B. Klaas Email: klaas.paul@dorsey.com 22 23 24 25 26 Date: 11/16/09 TER Chambers of Judge Whyte 27 28 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER. C-09-01943 RMW AKT/ter 8

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.