1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFFREY MILLER, No. 2:19-cv-00231-MCE-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 14 JOHN MILLER, DAVID MILLER,

MILLER PANELING SPECIALTIES,

15 INC., MPS PLASTIC WALL PRODUCTS, INC. dba MILLER 16 PANELING SPECIALTIES, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18

19 20 Plaintiff Jeffrey Miller (“Plaintiff”) initiated this wrongful termination and disability 21 discrimination action against Defendants John Miller, David Miller, Miller Paneling 22 Specialties, Inc. (“Miller Paneling”), and MPS Plastic Wall Products, Inc. dba Miller 23 Paneling Specialties, (“MPS Plastics”) after his employment with those family-run 24 businesses was terminated.1 Presently before this Court is Defendants’ Motion to 25 /// 26 1 This Court previously dismissed Defendants John Miller and MPS Plastics with leave to amend. 27 Plaintiff chose not to file an amended complaint and the claims against those Defendants are thus DISMISSED without further leave to amend. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s claims against David Miller 28 and Miller Paneling (hereafter “Defendants”). 1 Transfer Venue to the Eastern District of Virginia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). ECF 2 No. 21. For the foregoing reasons, their motion is DENIED.2 3 4 ANALYSIS3 5 6 “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district 7 court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have 8 been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The purpose of Section 1404(a) is to “prevent the 9 waste of time, energy, and money and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public 10 against unnecessary inconvenience and expense.” Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 11 612, 616 (1964) (internal quotation marks omitted). On a motion to transfer venue, the 12 moving party must make “a strong showing of inconvenience to warrant upsetting the 13 plaintiff's choice of forum.” Hope v. Otis Elevator Co., 389 F. Supp. 2d 1235, 1243 (E.D. 14 Cal. 2005) (quoting Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 15 (9th Cir. 1986)). The Court has broad discretion in deciding whether such transfer is 16 warranted based on an “individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and 17 fairness.” Van Dusen, 376 U.S. at 622. 18 Once the court determines a case could have been brought before the proposed 19 transferee court, it must consider a number of private and public factors relating to the 20 interests of the parties and the judiciary. For example, the court may consider: (1) the 21 plaintiff's choice of forum, (2) the respective parties’ contacts with that forum, 22 (3) contacts relating to the plaintiff's cause of action in the forum, (4) the cost of litigation 23 in either forum, (5) the ease of access to sources of proof, (6) the complexity of the 24 governing law, (7) the availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of

25 2 Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, the Court ordered this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Ca. Local Rule 230(g). 26

3 Given this Court’s disproportionately high case load, and in the interest of conserving judicial 27 resources and expediting a decision in this case, the Court will not recount details with which the parties are intimately familiar. To be clear, the Court has considered all evidence and arguments in the record, 28 but it limits its written decision to only that which is necessary to resolve the parties’ instant arguments. 1 unwilling non-party witnesses, and (8) other factors that, in the interest of justice, impact 2 the convenience or fairness of a particular venue. Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 3 211 F.3d 495, 498–499 (9th Cir. 2000). 4 There is no dispute that this action could have been commenced in the Eastern 5 District of Virginia. The remaining factors, however, weigh in favor of maintaining the 6 action here. 7 First, although Plaintiff does not presently reside in California, the operative facts 8 of the case occurred in California as that is where Plaintiff lived and regularly worked 9 during the period in dispute. Although Plaintiff also worked in other states such as 10 Washington, Virginia, and New York, Plaintiff lived and worked in California for three 11 decades until he sold his home in 2018 after his employment was terminated. 12 Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff officially moved to Idaho in 2016 is not dispositive 13 because Plaintiff still owned his California home and made frequent trips to California to 14 work for Miller Paneling over the following two years. Moreover, Defendant David Miller 15 is a resident of California, and Defendant Miller Paneling is a California corporation and 16 licensed California contractor, making their contacts with a California forum undeniable. 17 Second, the convenience of non-party witnesses also supports declining to 18 transfer the case. The convenience of non-party witnesses is usually the most important 19 factor in the venue transfer analysis. Florens Container v. Cho Yang Shipping, 20 245 F. Supp. 2d 1086, 1092 (N.D. Cal. 2002). Here, Plaintiff has identified west-coast 21 based witnesses who would be greatly inconvenienced by appearing across the country. 22 Defendants, to the contrary, identify primarily entity-affiliated witnesses who will suffer no 23 identified inconveniences by traveling to California to testify, especially when Defendant 24 Miller Paneling is a California entity that continues to maintain an office in Woodland. 25 Third, consideration of the ease of access to sources of proof also is of little 26 assistance to Defendants’ arguments. According to Defendants, Plaintiff’s personnel 27 and payroll records and MPS’s and Miller Paneling’s corporate records are located in 28 Virginia, but with modern technology and discovery methods, such documents can be wOASe UVVVM EO LIVIN Ne OU NO ER AY TM

1 | easily transferred electronically. Consequently, any “ease of access to documents 2 | [argument] does not weigh heavily in the transfer analysis, given that advances in 3 | technology have made it easy for documents to be transferred to different locations.” 4 | Metz v. United States Life Ins. Co., 674 F. Supp. 2d 1141, 1149 (C.D. Cal. 2009) 5 | (quotation omitted). The Court, therefore, lends little credence to Defendants’ contention 6 | in this regard in assessing venue. 7 Finally, the interests of justice favor maintaining this case here. Although Miller 8 | Paneling’s headquarters and principal place of business are in Virginia, it has done 9 | business in California for years and is a signatory to the Northern California Carpenters 10 | Union.* Moreover, Plaintiff's state claims are governed by California law. The Court 11 | thus concludes California has a greater interest in the outcome of this litigation than 12 | does Virginia. 13 Having weighed each of the factors that inform the analysis, the Court concludes 14 | that, on balance, transfer would be inappropriate. 15 16 CONCLUSION 17 18 For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue (ECF 19 | No. 21) is DENIED. 20 IT |S SO ORDERED 21 | Dated: May 4, 2020

23 MORRISON C. ENGLAND, J

UNITED STATES DISTRI

24 25 26 27 4 The Court has also considered Defendants’ arguments with regard to the congested dockets impacting this district. That factor alone is insufficient, however, to warrant transfer of this matter to 28 | another district under the circumstances of this case.