1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BRIAN THOMAS RUFF, Case No. 3:22-cv-00988-WHO

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO REMAND

9 v. AND TRANSFER

10 WILSON LOGISTICS, INC., Re: Dkt. Nos. 12, 18 Defendant. 11

12 13 Plaintiff Brian Thomas Ruff, an interstate trucker, filed this putative wage-and-hour class 14 action against defendant Wilson Logistics, Inc. (“Wilson”). Ruff moves to remand the case to 15 state court on the ground that Wilson has not shown that the amount in controversy exceeds the 16 jurisdictional threshold. Wilson moves to transfer this case to the Western District of Missouri 17 based on forum selection clauses in the parties’ contracts. Both motions are denied. Wilson has 18 shown that Ruff placed more than $75,000 in controversy. The claims are not governed by a valid 19 forum selection clause and the factors governing transfer weigh in favor of keeping the case here. 20 BACKGROUND 21 Ruff is a California citizen. Complaint (“Compl.”) [Dkt. No. 1-1] ¶ 11. Wilson is a 22 Missouri corporation with its principal place of business in Springfield, Missouri. Notice of 23 Removal (“Not.”) [Dkt. No. 1] 2. There is no dispute regarding the parties’ citizenship. Ruff 24 worked for Wilson between November 5, 2020, and April 21, 2021. Compl. ¶ 11; see also 25 Opposition to Motion to Transfer (“Tran. Oppo.”) [Dkt. No. 14] 1 (citing Declaration of Brian 26 Thomas Ruff (“Ruff Decl.”) [Dkt. No. 14-1] ¶ 2). According to Ruff, Wilson violated the 27 California Labor Code by (among other things) failing to compensate him and other employees for 1 See Compl. ¶ 4. He also brings derivative claims for unfair competition. Id. ¶¶ 3, 6. 2 Ruff alleges that he worked for Wilson performing transportation services as a truck 3 driver; he worked for specific shifts on a per-load basis and recorded his hours using a digital 4 system in the trucks that he operated. Id. ¶ 22. Ruff and Wilson entered into two “Independent 5 Contractor Operating Agreements” that contained forum selection clauses. See Tran. Oppo. 2 6 (citing Ruff Decl. ¶¶ 8–9). Those clauses provide,

7 This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the United States and of the State of Missouri, excluding the choice-of-law rules of Missouri. The parties agree that 8 any legal proceedings between the parties arising under, arising out of, or relating to the relationship created by this Agreement, including arbitration proceedings 9 discussed below, shall be filed and/or maintained in Springfield, Missouri or the 10 nearest location in Missouri where such proceedings can be maintained. 11 See Motion to Transfer Case (“Tran. Mot.”) [Dkt. No. 12] 4 (citing Declaration of Rhonda 12 Thornton (“Thornton Decl.”) [Dkt. No. 12-1], Exs. 1, 2). These contracts—including their forum 13 selection clauses—were conditions of Ruff’s employment with Wilson and were both signed after 14 January 1, 2017. See Tran. Oppo. 1–2 (citing Ruff Decl. ¶¶ 8–9). Ruff was not represented by 15 counsel when he signed either agreement, and he alleges that he “primarily lived and worked in 16 California” while working for Wilson. Id. 17 Ruff brings claims for a “systemic pattern of wage and hour violations under the California 18 Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders.” Compl. ¶ 28. He seeks monetary relief for unpaid wages 19 and benefits; interest; attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses; and penalties pursuant to the California 20 Labor Code. Id. ¶ 5. He also seeks injunctive relief and restitution for unfair competition. Id. ¶ 6. 21 On December 21, 2021, Ruff filed suit on behalf of himself and others similarly situated 22 against Wilson in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda. He 23 asserts nine claims: (1) failure to pay minimum wages, (2) failure to pay overtime wages, (3) 24 failure to provide meal periods, (4) failure to provide rest breaks, (5) failure to pay wages upon 25 separation of employment, (6) failure to furnish accurate and itemized wage statements, (7) failure 26 to reimburse all business expenses, (8) unlawful deduction of wages, and (9) violation of 27 California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. Id. ¶¶ 39–112. 1 then removed the case to this court, premised on diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 1. 2 LEGAL STANDARD 3 I. MOTION TO REMAND 4 Generally, a case can be removed from state to federal court only when the federal court 5 would have had original jurisdiction over it. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The defendant has the burden 6 of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Washington v. Chimei Innolux Corp., 659 7 F.3d 842, 847 (9th Cir. 2011). Removability is “generally determined as of the time of the petition 8 for removal.” Local Union 598, Plumbers & Pipefitters Industry Journeymen & Apprentices 9 Training Fund v. J.A. Jones Constr. Co., 846 F.2d 1213, 1215 (9th Cir. 1988). 10 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), federal diversity jurisdiction exists when each plaintiff is a 11 citizen of a different state from each defendant and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 12 Natural persons are the citizens of the state in which they are domiciled—that is, the state in which 13 they reside with intent to remain permanently. See Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 14 857 (9th Cir. 2001). Corporations are citizens of the state where they are incorporated and the 15 state where they have their principal place of business. Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 81 16 (2010). 17 Generally, “[i]f removal of a civil action is sought on the basis of the jurisdiction conferred 18 by section 1332(a), the sum demanded in good faith in the initial pleading shall be deemed to be 19 the amount in controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2). Where “it is unclear or ambiguous from the 20 face of a state-court complaint whether the requisite amount in controversy is pled, the removing 21 defendant bears the burden of establishing—by a preponderance of the evidence—that the amount 22 in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Fritsch v. Swift Transp. Co. of Ariz., LLC, 23 899 F.3d 785, 793 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Urbino v. Orkin Servs. of Cal., Inc., 726 F.3d 1118, 24 1121–22 (9th Cir. 2013)). “[T]he defendant’s amount-in-controversy allegation should be 25 accepted when not contested by the plaintiff or questioned by the court.” Dart Cherokee Basin 26 Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 87 (2014). “The amount in controversy is simply an 27 estimate of the total amount in dispute, not a prospective assessment of defendant’s liability.” 1 II. MOTION TO TRANSFER 2 The general federal venue statute provides that “[a] civil action may be brought in—(1) a 3 judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which 4 the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions 5 giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is 6 situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in 7 this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal 8 jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 9 A party moving to transfer venue may do so under either 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) or 28 U.S.C. 10 § 1406, depending on whether the initial venue is proper. If the initial venue is proper, the moving 11 party seeks a discretionary transfer under Section 1404(a), which provides that a district court may 12 transfer the case to any other district in which the case could have been originally filed “[f]or the 13 convenience of parties and witnesses” or “in the interest of justice.” If the initial venue is 14 improper, the moving party seeks a mandatory transfer under Section 1406, which provides that a 15 district court “shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer the case to any district or 16 division in which it could have been brought.” 17 Under Section 1404(a), courts generally balance a number of factors, including,

18 (1) plaintiff’s choice of forum, (2) convenience of the parties, (3) convenience of the witnesses, (4) ease of access to the evidence, (5) 19 familiarity of each forum with the applicable law, (6) feasibility of consolidation of other claims, (7) any local interest in the controversy, and 20 (8) the relative court congestion and time of trial in each forum. 21 Martinez v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, No. 3:19-CV-05479-WHO, 2019 WL 6727837, at *2 (N.D. 22 Cal. Dec. 11, 2019) (quoting Barnes & Noble v. LSI Corp., 823 F. Supp. 2d 980, 993 (N.D. Cal. 23 2011)); see also Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000); Decker Coal 24 Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). “The party moving for 25 transfer of a case bears the burden of demonstrating transfer is appropriate.” Saunders v. USAA 26 Life Ins. Co., 71 F. Supp. 3d 1058, 1060 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (Davila, J.). 27 1 DISCUSSION 2 I. MOTION TO REMAND 3 Ruff argues that Wilson failed to show that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 4 See Motion to Remand (“Remand Mot.”) [Dkt. No. 18] 1. For the reasons that follow, I conclude 5 that more than $75,000 has been sufficiently shown to be in controversy. 6 A. Standard 7 As a preliminary matter, the parties disagree on the proper standard for assessing the 8 sufficiency of jurisdictional allegations. Ruff argues that Wilson is required to submit “summary 9 judgment-style” evidence to support its position. See Remand Mot. 1. Wilson contends that this 10 evidence is not necessary, but that it has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Ruff’s 11 claims exceed the more-than-$75,000 jurisdictional threshold.1 See Opposition to Remand Mot. 12 (“Remand Oppo.”) [Dkt. No. 21] 1, 3, 8. 13 “A removing defendant’s notice of removal need not contain evidentiary submissions but 14 only plausible allegations of jurisdictional elements.” Salter v. Quality Carriers, Inc., 974 F.3d 15 959, 964 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing Arias v. Residence Inn by Marriott, 936 F.3d 920, 922 (9th Cir. 16 2019)). But if the plaintiff contests the notice of removal’s allegation, both sides may “submit 17 proof and the court decides, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the amount-in- 18 controversy requirement has been satisfied.” Dart, 574 U.S. at 88 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 19 1446(c)(2)(b)). There are two ways that a plaintiff may challenge a removing defendant’s 20 jurisdictional allegations. A “facial” attack “asserts that [allegations] are insufficient on their face 21 to invoke federal jurisdiction.” Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal 22 quotation marks and citation omitted). Courts resolve this type of attack in the same way as a 23 motion to dismiss. See id. In a “factual” attack, a plaintiff contests the truth of the defendant’s 24 factual allegations, and the defendant must support his allegations with “competent proof” under 25 the summary judgment standard. Id. 26

27 1 Wilson submitted evidence to support its factual assertions with its opposition. I treat this 1 Here, the Complaint does not allege an amount in controversy, so Wilson must establish 2 the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence. See Dart, 574 U.S. at 88. Ruff’s 3 main argument is that Wilson’s calculations must be rejected for failure to produce summary- 4 judgment-style evidence. See, e.g., Remand Mot. 5–6. This is a facial attack. See Salter, 974 5 F.3d at 964–65 (holding that an identical argument was a facial attack). Therefore, Wilson need 6 only plead plausible allegations—relying on reasonable assumptions—that show by a 7 preponderance of evidence that the amount in controversy is more than $75,000. See id. 8 B. The Amount In Controversy Exceeds $75,000 9 Ruff next argues that Wilson made unreasonable, inflated assumptions—that have no 10 support in the record—when calculating the amount in controversy. See Remand Mot. 1–2. 11 Wilson replies that each assumption made was based on allegations from the complaint. See 12 generally Remand Oppo. Wilson estimates that Ruff placed almost $122,000 in controversy, 13 independent of attorney fees, when Ruff’s regular pay rate is used in the calculations. See id. 1, 14 24. Ruff responds that Wilson has shown that at most $49,278.73 is in controversy. See 15 Reply ISO the Remand Mot. (“Remand Reply”) [Dkt. No. 22] 15. 16 Wilson has demonstrated that the threshold is met based on allegations in the complaint. 17 Courts look to the complaint as the first source of reference in determining the amount in 18 controversy. LaCross v. Knight Transp. Inc., 775 F.3d 1200, 1202 (9th Cir. 2015). “[T]he amount 19 in controversy reflects the maximum recovery the plaintiff could reasonably recover.” Arias, 936 20 F.3d at 927 (emphasis in original). In assessing this amount, a removing defendant may rely on a 21 “chain of reasoning that includes assumptions,” where “an assumption may be reasonable if it is 22 founded on the allegations of the complaint.” Id. at 925. 23 i. Lease Payments 24 Wilson contends that Ruff had $25,054.27 improperly deducted for truck lease payments 25 from his pay and that this amount was placed in controversy by Ruff’s complaint. See Remand 26 Oppo. 9. Ruff does not contest this amount. See Remand Reply 15. This amount is properly in 27 controversy. 1 ii. Unreimbursed Expenses 2 One of Ruff’s claims is that Wilson failed to reimburse him for transportation expenses. 3 Based on this claim, Wilson contends that Ruff placed $31,197.37 in controversy, based on 4 records of payments made to Ruff. Remand Oppo. 9. Ruff does not dispute the accuracy of the 5 records; he argues instead that $12,500.93 of this figure was reimbursed to him based on the 6 records. Remand Reply 5–6. Assuming that is true (I make no finding one way or the other), that 7 would place $18,696.44 indisputably in controversy, which is the amount I will use for present 8 purposes. 9 iii. Wage Statements 10 Ruff brings claims that, based on the substantive wage-and-hour violations, Wilson 11 provided inaccurate wage statements. Based on these claims, Wilson contends that Ruff placed 12 $2,150 in controversy because Ruff alleged that none of his wage statements complied with 13 California law. See Remand Oppo. 9–10 (citing Compl. ¶ 84). Ruff counters that Wilson 14 impermissibly assumes a 100 percent violation rate for wage statements and that it failed to 15 produce evidence to establish the number of pay periods for Ruff. See Remand Mot. 15–16. 16 Ruff alleged that Wilson failed to provide him complete and accurate wage statements 17 because they lacked information, including “gross wages earned, net wages earned, hours worked, 18 and all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period.” See Compl. ¶ 84. Again, Ruff 19 launches a facial attack. But Wilson did provide evidence—in the form of settlement statements 20 issued to Ruff—to support its calculation, and none of the statements contain hours worked or 21 hourly rates for Ruff. See Remand Oppo. 9–10 (citing Compl. ¶ 84; McGinnis Decl. at Ex. 4). 22 Consequently, Wilson’s assumption that all statements were at issue is reasonably founded on 23 allegations in Ruff’s complaint, and $2150 is in controversy on this claim. See Arias, 936 F.3d at 24 925, 927. 25 iv. Wage-Based Calculations 26 The amount in controversy for several of Ruff’s claims depends on the pay rate he was 27 owed. In its Opposition, Wilson used Ruff’s regular pay rate to evaluate Ruff’s claims relating to 1 using total revenue paid to Ruff and IFTA data to estimate Ruff’s total hours worked while under 2 contract with Wilson. See id. 16. 3 Ruff responds that Wilson incorrectly used the total number of hours that Ruff worked 4 during the entirety of his employment; he asserts that, under federal regulations, Wilson should 5 have calculated Ruff’s pay rate separately for each week that Ruff worked. See Remand Reply 7 6 (citing 28 C.F.R. § 778.109). Ruff does not provide an estimate of his regular rate; he uses 7 minimum wage in all his estimates that are based on wages. He does not challenge the factual 8 basis of Wilson’s assertions. He does not dispute the amount that Wilson paid him or the number 9 of miles driven while under contract with Wilson. He does not allege the total number of hours 10 that he worked. And he does not provide any evidence that he earned less per hour than Wilson 11 asserts. 12 Wilson relies on a chain of reasoning that includes assumptions that are founded on 13 allegations in Ruff’s complaint. Therefore, it is appropriate to use $63.30 as Ruff’s regular hourly 14 rate. Using that rate, I assess Ruff’s waiting time and overtime claims. 15 1. Waiting Time Penalties 16 Ruff claims that he was not paid proper waiting time rates. Based on these claims, Wilson 17 counters that Ruff placed $15,192 in controversy. See Remand Oppo. 18–19. While, as explained 18 above, Ruff disputes the pay rate, he does not challenge the method used by Wilson to calculate 19 these estimated penalties based on the rate. See Remand Reply 7. Wilson’s assumptions for 20 calculating these penalties are founded on allegations in Ruff’s complaint and so $15,192 is in 21 controversy for this claim. 22 2. Overtime 23 Ruff alleges that he was not paid proper overtime. Based on these claims, Wilson contends 24 that Ruff has placed at least $14,599 in controversy for unpaid overtime for work performed in 25 California. Remand Oppo. 16–17 (citing Ruff Decl. ¶ 14). Ruff counters that Wilson failed to 26 provide evidence of Ruff’s overtime pay rate or of the frequency of such unpaid overtime. See 27 Remand Mot. 14–15. 1 worked and requests overtime pay be determined based on his regular rate of pay. See Compl. ¶¶ 2 46, 52. Under California Labor Law, “for overtime work, an employee must receive a 50 percent 3 premium on top of his or her regular rate of pay.” Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp. of 4 California, 4 Cal. 5th 542, 553 (2018) (citing Cal. Lab. Code § 510). This amount is triggered for 5 “[a]ny work in excess of eight hours in one workday.” Cal. Lab. Code § 510. 6 Ruff challenges the factual basis for Wilson’s calculation. As discussed, Wilson provided 7 sufficient evidence to support its calculation of Ruff’s regular rate; California law provides the 8 formula to determine Ruff’s overtime rate. See id. In his declaration, Ruff states that driving 9 routes between California and either Oregon or Washington each resulted in his driving 11 hours 10 in a 14-hour window. See Ruff Decl. ¶¶ 12, 14. Although Ruff argues that minimum wage should 11 be used for his non-productive time, he states that 11 hours of driving time occurred on these 12 routes—at a minimum, the three hours over the eight-hour limit would not be compensated at 13 minimum wage under Ruff’s allegations. Therefore, Wilson’s assumption that Ruff incurred 14 overtime hours on certain routes is supported by allegations in Ruff’s complaint, as well as by 15 Ruff’s admissions. At least $14,599 is in controversy on this claim. 16 v. Conclusion 17 Based just on these categories, the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. As a result, 18 jurisdiction is appropriate and there is no need to consider the other categories the parties dispute. 19 II. MOTION TO TRANSFER 20 As noted, the parties’ contracts contained a forum selection clause designating Springfield, 21 Missouri (or the closest available place in Missouri) as the forum for disputes arising from the 22 contract. Wilson argues that the forum selection clauses in the parties’ contracts apply to Ruff’s 23 claims. See Tran. Mot. 3. Ruff contends that California law precludes enforcement of the forum 24 selection clauses and that the Section 1404 factors weigh against venue transfer. See Tran. Oppo. 25 1–2, 14–16. I conclude that transfer is not warranted. 26 A. The Forum Selection Clauses Are Voidable Under California Labor Law 27 Ordinarily, a district court considering a Section 1404(a) motion would balance the factors 1 Supreme Court has held that “Section 1404(a) . . . provides a mechanism for enforcement of 2 forum-selection clauses that point to a particular federal district.” Atl. Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. 3 Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. of Texas, 571 U.S. 49, 59 (2013). It has instructed that “[w]hen the parties 4 have agreed to a valid forum-selection clause, a district court should ordinarily transfer the case to 5 the forum specified in that clause.” Id. at 62. Denying transfer of claims like this would require 6 “extraordinary circumstances unrelated to the convenience of the parties.” Id. 7 I agree with Ruff that he can void the clauses under California Labor Code § 925, 8 rendering them invalid. See Tran. Oppo. 4. The Ninth Circuit recently held that Section 925(b) 9 controls the analysis of the clauses’ validity in diversity cases. See DePuy Synthes Sales, Inc. v. 10 Howmedica Osteonics Corp., 28 F.4th 956, 964 (9th Cir. 2022). Section 925 is a California 11 statute that “forecloses certain contracts with California employees and renders such agreements 12 ‘voidable by the employee’ under specified conditions.” DePuy, 28 F.4th at 958. The key 13 provisions read:

14 (a) An employer shall not require an employee who primarily resides and works in California, as a condition of employment, to agree to a provision 15 that would do either of the following:

16 (1) Require the employee to adjudicate outside of California a claim arising in California. 17

(2) Deprive the employee of the substantive protection of 18 California law with respect to a controversy arising in California. 19 (b) Any provision of a contract that violates subdivision (a) is voidable by the employee, and if a provision is rendered void at the request of the 20 employee, the matter shall be adjudicated in California and California law 21 shall govern the dispute.

22 (e) This section shall not apply to a contract with an employee who is in fact individually represented by legal counsel in negotiating the terms of an 23 agreement to designate either the venue or forum in which a controversy arising from the employment contract may be adjudicated or the choice of 24 law to be applied. 25 Id. at 958–59 (alteration and emphasis omitted) (citing Cal. Lab. Code § 925). 26 Wilson does not dispute that Ruff primarily lived in California; was required to agree to 27 the contracts containing forum selection clauses as a condition of working for Wilson; entered into 1 the contracts. Instead, the parties’ dispute is whether Ruff “primarily works in California,” as 2 required for the statute to apply. The parties have not pointed to, and I have not found, definitive 3 interpretations from the California courts about what is required for an employee to “primarily” 4 work in California—whether it is simply a calculation of time, a qualitative assessment of the 5 nature of the work performed in-state and out-of-state, or some combination. Regardless, for the 6 reasons that follow, Ruff has adequately shown that he “primarily” worked in California, however 7 construed. 8 Because of the nature of interstate trucking, it is inevitable that Ruff performed a 9 meaningful portion of his work outside of the state. But he has shown that he was based in 10 California and likely spent a majority of his work time in the state, which is sufficient. According 11 to a sworn declaration that Ruff submitted, he lived in California and his job consisted of 12 “delivering freight loads to and from California.” Dkt. No. 14-1 ¶ 10. That alone is good 13 evidence that he worked “primarily” in California, despite meaningful work in other states: 14 California was the nexus of the work. He also states that his driving time consisted of trips from 15 southern California to Oregon and Washington and back down. Id. ¶ 11. These trips took two 16 days to complete, so he rested for the night in California. Id. Indeed, because he was entitled to 17 10-hour rest periods after 11 hours of driving, and a drive through California took more than 11 18 hours, he spent the night in California on each of these drives. Id. ¶ 12. He estimates that, as a 19 result, “a majority” of his total working time took place in the state. Id. ¶¶ 11, 15. And he also 20 prepared for trips at his home in California. Id. Accordingly, the record indicates that Ruff 21 “primarily” worked in California. 22 To resist this finding, Wilson points primarily to records of Ruff’s mileage and credit card 23 purchases of fuel. Those records show that only about 36.5% of miles driven were in California 24 and about 27% of fuel purchases were made in California. Tran. Mot. 4 (citing Thornton Decl. ¶¶ 25 14–19); Tran. Reply 3 (citing Declaration of Stefani Stovall (“Stovall Decl. 2”) [Dkt. No. 16-1] ¶¶ 26 4–6, Ex. 3). But records of mileage and fuel purchases do not take into account total work time. 27 As noted above, Ruff was legally entitled to 10 hours of rest after 11 hours of driving, which 1 assertions about the non-driving work in California. 2 None of Wilson’s cases compel a different conclusion. Many of them did not concern the 3 validity of a forum selection clause under Section 925. And to the extent they considered where a 4 plaintiff “primarily” worked, the plaintiffs there did not put forward any of the types of evidence 5 that Ruff does here. See Bromlow v. D & M Carriers, LLC, 438 F. Supp. 3d 1021, 1030 (N.D. 6 Cal. 2020) (White, J.); v. FAF, Inc., No. 19-CV-142-WQH-BLM, 2019 WL 2574119, at *5–6 7 (S.D. Cal. June 20, 2019); Aaron Cordero v. C.R. England, Inc., No. EDCV202675JGBKKX, 8 2021 WL 2793929, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2021). 9 Accordingly, the forum selection clause is void. 10 B. Transfer of These Claims Is Not Warranted 11 Wilson argues that venue transfer is warranted. See Tran. Mot. 6. I conclude that, in the 12 absence of a valid forum selection clause, Wilson has not met its burden demonstrating that 13 balance of convenience and interests of justice factors clearly favor transfer. See Saunders, 71 F. 14 Supp. 3d at 1060. 15 The decision to transfer venue under Section 1404 is a matter within the sound discretion 16 of the district court. See King v. Russell, 963 F.2d 1301, 1304 (9th Cir. 1992). To reiterate, courts 17 generally balance a number of factors, including,

18 plaintiff’s choice of forum, (2) convenience of the parties, (3) convenience of the witnesses, (4) ease of access to the evidence, (5) familiarity of each 19 forum with the applicable law, (6) feasibility of consolidation of other claims, (7) any local interest in the controversy, and (8) the relative court 20 congestion and time of trial in each forum. 21 See, e.g., Jones, 211 F.3d at 498. California’s public policy is also a significant factor. See id. at 22 499 (“We also conclude that the relevant public policy of the forum state, if any, is at least as 23 significant a factor in the § 1404(a) balancing.”). 24 1. Private-Interest Factors 25 “Factors relating to the parties’ private interests include relative ease of access to sources 26 of proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining 27 attendance of willing, witnesses; possibility of view of premises, if view would be appropriate to 1 the action; and all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and 2 inexpensive.” Atl. Marine, 571 U.S. at 63 n.6 (quoting Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 3 241 n.6 (1981)). Here, the private-interest factors favor Ruff. 4 “[G]reat weight is generally accorded to a plaintiff’s choice of forum, although that choice 5 is given less weight when filed as a class action and where there are not significant contacts 6 between the forum and the allegations of the complaint.” Lax v. Toyota Motor Corp., 65 F. Supp. 7 3d 772, 777 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (Orrick, J.) (citing Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 8 1987)). In assessing this factor, “consideration must be given to the extent of both” the plaintiffs’ 9 and defendants’ contacts with the forum relating to the cause of action. Id. 10 Ruff is a resident of Susanville, California, and he brought suit in Alameda County, 11 California. See Compl.; Ruff Decl. ¶ 11. He has a legitimate and significant connection to this 12 forum and is entitled to deference for suing in his home state. See Ennis v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 13 No. 3:18-CV-01617-WHO, 2018 WL 4636197, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2018). Many of the 14 operative facts occurred in California and there is no evidence of forum shopping; Ruff’s choice 15 does not merit lessened consideration. See Lou, 834 F.2d at 739. Although Wilson’s corporate 16 headquarters is in Missouri, it has hired citizens of California as truck drivers and implemented 17 policies that allegedly violate California labor laws. That it is headquartered in Missouri “does not 18 negate the local impact of [its] decisions when they are implemented elsewhere.” Fleming v. 19 Matco Tools Corp., 384 F. Supp. 3d 1124, 1135 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (Orrick, J.) (citing Karl, 2018 20 WL 5809428, at *5). 21 The convenience of the parties and witnesses also leans in Ruff’s favor. Ruff is an 22 individual and is located in California, as will be the other members of his putative class. He also 23 contends that his co-workers and supervisor are in California. See Tran. Oppo. 15. Wilson, 24 though headquartered in Missouri, already has at least some contacts with California and is, in any 25 case, a corporation that can more easily dispatch representatives and counsel to California than can 26 Ruff to Missouri. Although Wilson argues that its employees are in Missouri, “[t]he convenience 27 of a litigant’s employee witnesses is entitled to little weight because litigants are able to compel 1 contends that nearly all documents and sources of proof are located in California and that some 2 documents may be in Missouri. See Tran. Oppo. 15. Wilson does not counter this argument. 3 As a result, the private-interest factors tilt in Ruff’s favor. 4 i. Public-Interest Factors 5 “Public factors include the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; the 6 local interest in having localized controversies decided at home; the interest in having the trial of a 7 diversity case in a forum that is at home with the law that must govern the action; the avoidance of 8 unnecessary problems in conflict of laws, or in the application of foreign law; and the unfairness 9 of burdening citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty.” Decker, 805 F.2d at 843 (quoting 10 Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 241 n.6). Here, the public factors also favor Ruff. 11 Most importantly, California has a strong interest in having California-centric labor 12 disputes adjudicated in California—an interest it codified in Section 925. See DePuy, 28 F.4th at 13 958–62; Alabsi, 2019 WL 1332191, at *17; Karl, 2018 WL 5809428, at *8. Wilson’s only real 14 counterargument is that Ruff primarily worked outside of California, see Tran. Reply 6–7, but I 15 reject that argument above. As explained, the class would consist of workers who live and 16 primarily work in California. 17 The other public-interest factors do not matter all that much, but they certainly are not 18 enough to tip the balance in Wilson’s favor. Either federal court can competently apply California 19 law (though, if anything, this court is already familiar with it, favoring Ruff). See Atl. Marine, 571 20 U.S. at 67 (“[F]ederal judges routinely apply the law of a State other than the State in which they 21 sit.”); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fairbanks Co., 17 F. Supp. 3d 385, 398 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (“The 22 forum’s familiarity with the governing law is typically to be accorded little weight on a motion to 23 transfer venue because federal courts are deemed capable of applying the substantive law of other 24 states.” (internal citations and quotations omitted)). There is no issue of consolidation that either 25 party has raised. And there is no issue of this court being overly congested. Wilson contends that 26 the Western District of Missouri resolves cases about three-and-a-half months faster than this 27 court, but that difference of a few months is insubstantial compared to the other interests at stake. 1 CONCLUSION 2 The motions to remand and transfer are DENIED. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: May 12, 2022 5 . Orrick 7 nited States District Judge 8 9 10 11 a 12

13 14

15 16

= 17

Z 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28