Filed: Jun. 23, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 23, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNDER 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) VINCE CHHABRIA, District Judge. Defendant General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. ("Defendant") and Plaintiffs Jerry Walden and Matthew Willis ("Plaintiffs"), the parties to the above-entitled action (collectively, the "Parties"), through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: WHEREAS, on or about March 13, 2014, Plaintiffs, on behalf of them
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNDER 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) VINCE CHHABRIA, District Judge. Defendant General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. ("Defendant") and Plaintiffs Jerry Walden and Matthew Willis ("Plaintiffs"), the parties to the above-entitled action (collectively, the "Parties"), through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: WHEREAS, on or about March 13, 2014, Plaintiffs, on behalf of thems..
More
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNDER 28 U.S.C. §1404(a)
VINCE CHHABRIA, District Judge.
Defendant General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. ("Defendant") and Plaintiffs Jerry Walden and Matthew Willis ("Plaintiffs"), the parties to the above-entitled action (collectively, the "Parties"), through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:
WHEREAS, on or about March 13, 2014, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a purported class action in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, entitled JERRY WALDEN and MATTHEW WILLIS, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated v. GENERAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Virginia corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case Number RG 14717315 ("Complaint");
WHEREAS, on April 11, 2014, Defendant filed its Answer to Plaintiffs' unverified Complaint and removed the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California based on federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA") and 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). See ECF Nos. 1, 1-2;
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2014, Defendant filed its Motion to Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (the "Motion"), asserting that this case should be transferred to the Southern District of California based on the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice. See ECF No. 14;
WHEREAS, the Motion is scheduled for hearing on July 24, 2014;
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Non-Opposition and Statement in Support of Defendant's Motion. See ECF No. 21;
WHEREAS, the Parties have met and conferred to discuss the merits of Defendant's Motion and agree that this action should be transferred to the Southern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a);
WHEREAS, the Parties stipulate that transfer of this action to the Southern District of California is appropriate because: (1) the Southern District has subject matter jurisdiction over this case under federal question and diversity jurisdiction and the CAFA; (2) Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the Southern District because it conducts business in the Southern District; and (3) venue is proper in the Southern District because Defendant has conducted business in the Southern District throughout all time periods relevant to this action;
WHEREAS, the Parties stipulate that the Southern District is the proper venue for this action for reasons including, but not limited to, the following:
• Neither Plaintiff has resided in the Northern District during any time period relevant to this action;
• The purported conduct that underlies Plaintiffs' allegations occurred "outside the United States" and did not occur in the Northern District;
• The majority of Defendant's employees (including potential witnesses and putative class members) are located in the Southern District, with 269 of Defendant's 517 California employees located in the Southern District, compared to 64 employees in the Northern District;
• Defendant's two largest California offices are located in the Southern District, with 115 of Defendant's employees working at either of Defendant's San Diego or Chula Vista offices, compared to 7 employees working in Defendant's single Northern District office in Santa Clara;
• Lead counsel for all Parties are located in the Central District, which is significantly closer to the Southern District than the Northern District;
• Plaintiff Willis executed the agreement that is subject of this action in San Clemente, California, which is in the southern most part of the Central District, on the border of the Southern District;
• Plaintiff Willis commenced his travel to his overseas work location (where the allegations underlying Plaintiffs' claims occurred) from Orange County, California, which is located in the Southern Division of the Central District and is significantly closer to the Southern District than the Northern District;
• Plaintiff Walden executed the subject agreement in and commenced travel from a location outside of California;
• Given Defendant's substantial operations in the Southern District of California relative to other California districts, the Southern District has the most significant "local interest" in the subject controversy;
THEREFORE, the Parties hereby stipulate and agree that:
1. In light of the above factors, the Parties request that this action be transferred in its entirety from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, to the to the United States District Court, Southern District of California, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
2. The Parties further request that the Court vacate the July 24, 2014 hearing on Defendant's Motion (as well as the Case Management Conference scheduled for the same day).
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
ORDER
For the reasons described in the Parties' Stipulation, and for good cause shown, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that this action be transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the United States District Court, Southern District of California. The hearing on Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue to the Southern District of California and the Case Management Conference set for July 24, 2014, are vacated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
