Garland v. Duane Morris, LLP

Background

Meagan Garland filed a proposed class action in the Northern District of California against Duane Morris, LLP, and Tax Accounting Group, a certified public accountant group affiliated with Duane Morris. The complaint alleged that Duane Morris misclassified its non-equity partners as partners even though they were employees. Garland alleged that this deprived them of benefits and protections, including health-insurance subsidies, disability insurance, workers’ compensation insurance, and expense reimbursement.

The complaint also alleged that Duane Morris paid female and diverse attorneys less than male and white attorneys. It asserted a declaratory-judgment claim, numerous common-law claims, claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law and Labor Code, and a California Equal Pay Act claim. Garland sought to represent a nationwide class of non-equity partners and a California class of certain non-white and female attorneys.

Duane Morris denied that it misclassified non-equity partners or discriminated in compensation. It contended that Garland’s lower compensation resulted from personal performance issues. Duane Morris moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the case to the Southern District of California. Garland opposed transfer. The opinion also notes that Duane Morris filed a separate motion to dismiss.

Transfer analysis

Section 1404(a) permits a federal court to transfer a civil action to another federal district where the action could have been brought when transfer would be more convenient for the parties and witnesses and would serve the interests of justice. The court found that the parties did not appear to dispute that the case could have been brought in the Southern District. The dispute concerned convenience and fairness.

The court gave Garland’s choice of the Northern District little weight. It noted that she did not reside there, that the complaint’s individual discrimination allegations concerned work she performed in San Diego, and that the Northern District did not appear to have a significant connection to the claims. The court also rejected Garland’s arguments that the Northern District would be more convenient for putative class members and that the location of some firm leaders in San Francisco created a significant connection to the Northern District. The court noted that Duane Morris’s headquarters and much of its leadership were on the East Coast.

The court found the Southern District more convenient for the parties and witnesses because Garland lived and worked in the San Diego area and likely witnesses included partners and employees from the San Diego office who could testify about her performance and treatment. The court found that testimony from those individuals was central to her individual pay-discrimination allegations. It also concluded that the Southern District had a greater local interest because Garland worked there and alleged that she experienced the challenged conduct there.

The court found that the remaining factors did not weigh against transfer. It stated that both federal courts were equally familiar with California and federal law, would be equally able to apply other states’ laws to classification issues involving the proposed nationwide class, and would have equal access to the evidence.

Disposition

The court concluded that Duane Morris had shown that the Southern District of California was the more appropriate forum. It GRANTED Duane Morris’s motion to transfer, directed the clerk to transfer the case to the Southern District of California, and directed the clerk to close the file.