The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kimba M. Wood, U.S.D.J.
Plaintiffs Stephen Morris and Kelly McDaniel brought suit against their former employer, Ernst & Young ("E&Y"), under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the California Labor Code ("CLC") alleging that E&Y failed to compensate them for overtime or required breaks. Plaintiffs seek to certify a national collective group under § 16(b) of the FLSA and also certify a class of California E&Y employees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
Currently before the Court is Defendants' motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendants' motion.
For years, current and former E&Y employees, many represented by Plaintiffs' counsel in the instant case, have sought class certification in actions against E&Y alleging unpaid overtime under California law. David Ho filed the first such action on September 27, 2005 in California state court, asserting claims under the CLC. After E&Y removed the action to the Northern District of California, Ho amended his complaint to add three additional plaintiffs, including Sarah Fernandez. See Ho v. Ernst & Young LLP, 2009 WL 111729, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2009) (No. 05-CV-04867). After the district court granted summary judgment against Ho, and two of the additional plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew, only Fernandez remained to represent the putative class. Id. at *1-*2. Soonafter, two additional cases involving putative classes asserting claims under the CLC -- Landon v. Ernst & Young, 2009 WL 4723708 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2009) (No. 08-CV-02853), and Richards v. Ernst & Young, 2010 WL 682314 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2010) (No. 08-CV-04988) -- were consolidated with Ho (now Fernandez) for class certification purposes. Plaintiffs in these three cases sought to represent classes of current and former E&Y Staff -- first and second year employees -- and Seniors -- third and fourth year employees -- in the auditing and tax groups at E&Y's offices in California. On September 20, 2011, Northern District of California District Judge Fogel denied certification with respect to the auditing employees (Fernandez) but granted the motion with respect to the tax employees (Richards).
The denial of certification in Fernandez focused on the fact that Fernandez herself was not an adequate class representative. See Ho v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 106658, at *10-11. Accordingly, on December 8, 2011, after Judge Fogel denied class certification, the Fernandez plaintiffs moved to add Stephen Morris as a new plaintiff. (Knopp Decl. Ex. C.) Morris had earlier provided a declaration in support of class certification and was deposed. (Knopp Decl. Exs. A, B.) The court ultimately denied Morris's attempt to join the suit, finding that plaintiffs had unduly delayed in attempting to add Morris. (Knopp Decl. Ex. D.) At the same time, the court explained that Morris could file his own suit.
Rather than file suit in the Northern District of California, however, on February 2, 2012, Morris brought suit in the Southern District of New York. On April 20, 2010, before the Northern District of California took the above mentioned actions in Fernandez and before Morris attempted to join the Fernandez litigation, a distinct set of New York E&Y employees filed their own suit in the Southern District of New York. That case is currently pending before this Court. See Sutherland v. Ernst & Young, 768 F. Supp. 2d 547 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (No. 10-CV-3332) (Wood, J.). The Sutherland plaintiffs, like Morris and McDaniel, assert a FLSA claim and seek to certify a nationwide FLSA collective. In contrast to Morris and McDaniel, however, Sutherland's putative class involves Staff employees, not Seniors. (Amended Compl. ¶1.) Also unlike Morris and McDaniel, the Sutherland plaintiffs assert state law claims under the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), not the CLC, and seek to certify a Rule 23 class on behalf of New York-based employees, not California-based employees.
Previously, Defendants sought to have Sutherland transferred to the Northern District of California. This Court, pursuant to Magistrate Judge Michael H. Dollinger's Report and Recommendation (Knopp Decl. Ex. H ("Sutherland Transfer Order")), denied Defendants' motion to transfer. Defendants now move to transfer this action.
Section 1404(a) provides that "[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The purpose of transferring venue is to "prevent the waste of time, energy, and money and to protect litigants, witnesses, and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense." Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964) (internal quotation marks omitted). The burden is on the moving party to make a "clear and convincing showing that transfer will serve the interests of convenience and fairness." Capitol Records, LLC v. VideoEgg, Inc., 611 F. Supp. 2d 349, 368 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (Baer, J.); see also N.Y. Marine & Gen., Ins. Co. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 599 F.3d 102, 114 (2d Cir. 2010) (The party requesting transfer carries the "burden of making out a strong case for transfer." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
"Deciding a § 1404(a) motion to transfer venue 'requires a two-part inquiry: first, whether the action to be transferred might have been brought in the transferee court; and second, whether considering the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and the interest of justice, a transfer is appropriate.'" AGCS Marine Ins. Co. v. Associated Gas & Oil Co., Ltd., 775 F. Supp. 2d 640, 645 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (Marrero, J.).*fn1
A. Whether this Action Might Have Been Brought in California
In order to determine if an action "might have been brought" in a transferee court for purposes of § 1404(a), a district court must consider the facts at the time the action was commenced. See Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 342 (1960); Schertenleib v. Traum, 589 F.2d 1156, 1161 (2d Cir. 1978). In particular, "subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction and venue all must have been proper in the proposed transferee court at the time the action was filed." AGCS Marine, 775 F. Supp. 2d at 646.
As evidenced by the numerous nearly identical suits pending against E&Y in the Northern District of California, this Court finds, and the Parties do not dispute, that this action ...