United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
Dominic W. Lanza United States District Judge
This
lawsuit was filed in October 2017. (Doc. 1.) Initially,
Plaintiff-an Arizona resident-asserted only individual
federal and state-law claims against her employer, American
Airlines, Inc. (“American”), for gender-based
wage discrimination. However, in September 2018, Plaintiff
filed an amended complaint in which she dropped her state-law
claim and asserted federal claims on behalf of a nationwide
class of over 8, 000 current and former American employees.
(Doc. 32.) Less than two weeks later, American filed a motion
to transfer this case to the Northern District of Texas. The
motion is now fully briefed (see Docs. 34, 37, 38)
and neither party has requested oral argument.
The
motion to transfer will be granted. As an initial matter, the
Court notes that this case shares more than a few
similarities with Aircraft Mechs. Fraternal Ass'n v.
Sw. Airlines Co., 2017 WL 1384296 (D. Ariz. 2017), and
Hoefert v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 2018 WL 2740276 (D.
Ariz. 2018). In Aircraft Mechanics, the plaintiffs
alleged that Southwest Airlines violated federal law when
attempting to amend its collective bargaining agreement with
a mechanics' union. 2017 WL 1384296 at *1. Even though
291 of the union members and one of the key union negotiators
resided in Arizona, and even though “[a]
plaintiff's choice of forum is generally given great
deference, ” the district court concluded the lawsuit
should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas
(where Southwest was headquartered) because most of the
negotiating sessions occurred there, most of the key
witnesses resided there, and more union members resided there
than in Arizona. Id. at *1-2. Similarly, in
Hoefert, the plaintiff brought a class action on
behalf of all current and former American pilots who had
taken military leave within a specified period. 2018 WL
2740276 at *1. Even though the plaintiff claimed to reside in
Arizona and American conducted business in Arizona, the court
concluded the lawsuit should be transferred to the Northern
District of Texas (where American was headquartered) because
“the overwhelming majority of the parties and witnesses
to this matter are located in Texas or east of Texas.”
Id. at *2.
With
those decisions in mind, the Court will address the relevant
statutes and factors. 28 U.S.C. § 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 . . . .” Id. “Under §
1404(a), the district court has discretion to adjudicate
motions for transfer according to an individualized,
case-by-case consideration of convenience and
fairness.” Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211
F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotations omitted).
“In making this determination, the district court may
consider a variety of factors, including: the convenience of
the parties, the relative financial burdens, the convenience
of witnesses, the availability of compulsory process to
compel unwilling witness attendance, the availability of
witnesses and their live testimony at trial, the ease of
access to sources of proof, the differences in the costs of
litigation in the two forums, contacts with the chosen forum,
jurisdiction over the parties, the state most familiar with
the governing law, the relevant public policy of the forum
state, the existence of any forum selection clause, and the
relative docket congestion of the court.” Aircraft
Mechanics, 2017 WL 1384296 at *2.[1]
As
discussed below, the Court concludes that American has met
its burden of demonstrating that a transfer is appropriate
and in the interest of justice.[2]
1.
Location of Relevant Events: Although both parties urge the
Court to consider “where the relevant events
happened” as part of the transfer calculus, they
disagree as to how this factor should be applied. American
contends the “relevant events here are American's
internal system of compensating employees” and that
these decisions primarily took place in Texas. (Doc. 34 at
12.) Plaintiff contends the relevant events were “the
delivery of discriminatory paychecks, not . . . where the
policies and practices that are being challenged were
developed.” (Doc. 37 at 6-7.) Plaintiff also notes
that, during a portion of the proposed class period,
American's predecessor-in-interest (US Airways) was based
in Arizona. (Id.)
This
factor cuts in favor of a transfer to Texas. Although
Plaintiff may be correct that the delivery of a
discriminatory paycheck in a particular forum is enough to
create venue within that forum, the issue here is
different-the court must assess where the relevant
liability-generating conduct occurred. Jones, 211
F.3d at 498. In this case, that location is primarily Texas.
2.
Convenience of Parties: American is headquartered in
Texas. In addition, American has submitted evidence in
support of its motion showing that “about 80% of the 8,
377 potential class members-6, 720-reside closer to Texas
than Arizona” and that “while over half of the
potential class members-4, 591-reside in Texas, only 1, 364
reside in Arizona.” (Doc. 34 at 5.) These figures
suggest Texas would be a much more convenient forum than
Arizona from American's perspective.
Plaintiff,
in contrast, resides in Arizona, so transferring the case to
Texas will inconvenience her and her California-based
attorney, who may need to associate with local counsel to
comply with the Northern District of Texas's local rules.
(Doc. 37 at 9-10.) However, because this case is a nationwide
class action, Plaintiff's initial choice to file suit in
Arizona is entitled to less deference than usual. Bratton
v. Schering-Plough Corp., 2007 WL 2023482, *4 (D. Ariz.
2007) (“Although the Brattons have chosen their home
forum, this is only one factor to be considered and is not
dispositive. A plaintiff's choice of forum is entitled to
less weight in evaluating venue transfer factors when the
plaintiff represents a nationwide class . . . .”).
Plaintiff
also argues that Arizona wouldn't be a particularly
inconvenient forum for American because it “has
multiple commercial offices in the Phoenix-area, and Phoenix
Sky Harbor Airport is Defendant's sixth-largest
hub.” (Doc. 37 at 11.) This argument is unavailing.
Many companies, including airlines, have operations in an
array of different cities. That doesn't mean that each
such city would be an equally convenient forum for litigation
as the city where the company is headquartered.
Finally,
Plaintiff states that she wishes to avoid a transfer to Texas
because “the Fifth Circuit is well known to be a more
employer-friendly circuit when compared to the Ninth
Circuit.” (Doc. 37 at 10.) Plaintiff does not, however,
identify any case law suggesting this sort of raw tactical
consideration may be legitimately considered as part of the
§ 1404(a) transfer analysis.
The
Court thus concludes that the convenience-to-parties factor
tips slightly in favor of a transfer to Texas. Cf.
Aircraft Mechs., 2017 WL 1384296 at *2
(“Plaintiffs are entitled to deference for their choice
in forum, but this factor weighs in favor of
transfer.”).
3.
Convenience of Witnesses/Location of Evidence:
American has submitted evidence showing that “[a]ll
American employees who are potential witnesses-and whose
testimony will be essential to resolving this litigation- are
based in Fort Worth. Multiple employees in the Human
Resources Division, Finance Division, Compensation
Department, and Executive Compensation Department, which are
headquartered in Fort Worth, are likely to have relevant
information due to the nature of their positions and
responsibilities, including Chris Ducey (Managing Director,
Compensation and Retirement), Patricia Herrera (Director,
Executive Compensation), and Hazel Guideng (Manager,
Compensation). Indeed, American's entire Executive
Compensation team is based in Fort Worth. Any of these
witnesses, who all work at American's headquarters in
Fort Worth, would be inconvenienced by having to appear at
trial in Arizona.” (Doc. 34 at 9.) American further
argues that most of the key documents in this case, including
“any hard copy notes or records related to compensation
policies, ” are likely “maintained by the
Compensation Department in Fort Worth, a department with
responsibility for administration of the policies.”
(Doc. 34 at 10-11.)
Plaintiff
responds to these arguments by noting that American's
initial discovery disclosures in this case didn't
identify any Texas-based witnesses or Texas-based documents.
(Doc. 37 at 2-4.) She thus argues that American's belated
identification of those witnesses and documents, after her
amended complaint was filed, should be regarded with
suspicion. (Doc. 37 at 2-4.) Plaintiff further contends that,
even if most of the documents are located in Texas,
“advancements in electronic discovery and ...