Quach v. Walgreen Co.

Background

Daciana Quach brought claims against Walgreen Co. for retaliation under California’s Labor Code and wrongful termination. During case-management proceedings, Walgreen stated that Quach worked at one of its stores in Bakersfield, California. The court then ordered the parties to explain why the case should not be transferred to the Eastern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the federal statute allowing transfer for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice.

Walgreen said it did not oppose transfer. Quach did not expressly oppose it, but argued that both parties’ lawyers were located in Southern California, witnesses could testify remotely by videoconference, and the parties had already engaged in motion practice and scheduled a case-management conference.

Court’s analysis

For a transfer under § 1404(a), the proposed receiving court must be a court where the case could have been filed, and the court must weigh convenience and public-interest factors. The parties did not dispute that the case could have been brought in the Eastern District of California.

The court gave Quach’s choice of the Northern District of California only minimal weight because she had not provided information showing that she resided there, and the case-management statement indicated that the events underlying the claims occurred in the Eastern District. The court also found that the convenience of witnesses and the parties, and access to evidence, favored transfer. Although neither party provided specific witness information, Walgreen identified store and district managers, making it reasonable to conclude that some relevant documents would be in the Eastern District.

The court found that the applicable-law factor was neutral because both courts could apply the relevant law. It also noted that the Northern District was less congested, but found little connection between that district and the dispute. The court had spent little time on the merits, and it concluded that it would be unfair to burden jurors in the Northern District with a trial involving a dispute having little connection to that district. The location of counsel received little weight.

Ruling

Judge Jeffrey S. White held that the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice outweighed the limited deference given to Quach’s forum choice. The court TRANSFERS the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Bakersfield Division. The clerk was directed to close the file. The order did not decide the merits of Quach’s retaliation or wrongful-termination claims.