Ocampo v. HeiTech Services, Inc.

Background

Henry Ocampo brought claims against HeiTech Services, Inc. He alleged disability discrimination and retaliation under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act and the California Family Rights Act, failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation under California law, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and California Labor Code section 203 waiting-time penalties.

The opinion states that Ocampo is a California resident who worked for HeiTech, a Maryland corporation, and that HeiTech assigned him to work in San Francisco. Ocampo took medical leave, returned to work with a medical release allowing him to work without restrictions, and was then told his employment would end because the government contract funding his position was expiring. Ocampo alleged that the contract continued for several months afterward.

HeiTech removed the case from state court to federal court and moved to transfer it to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The parties agreed that the case could have been brought there; they disputed whether the relevant convenience and public-interest factors supported transfer.

Judicial Notice

Ocampo asked the court to take judicial notice of federal court management statistics. Judicial notice allows a court to accept certain facts that are not reasonably disputable and can be accurately checked from reliable sources. Because the statistics came from a government source and HeiTech did not oppose the request, the court granted Ocampo’s request.

Motion to Transfer

The court analyzed the motion under 28 U.S.C. section 1404(a), which allows a federal court to transfer a civil case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The court considered the parties’ private interests and public-interest factors, while giving weight to Ocampo’s choice of forum.

The court gave Ocampo’s choice of California great deference because he was a California resident and alleged that he was hired to work there. Although HeiTech argued that it had not done business or entered contracts in California, the court found that HeiTech had contracted to work with Ocampo for approximately ten years.

HeiTech identified eight Maryland witnesses who were involved in Ocampo’s termination or knew relevant facts. The court found that this factor favored transfer, but gave it limited weight because all eight witnesses were HeiTech employees, whom HeiTech could generally require to appear at trial. The court found that the location of documents in Maryland weighed only very slightly in favor of transfer because electronic storage and transmission reduce the burden of moving evidence.

The court found that the applicable-law factor weighed against transfer. Although both courts could apply federal law and the Maryland court could apply California law, the Northern District of California was more familiar with California law. The court also noted a public interest in litigating California Fair Employment and Housing Act claims in California.

The court found the local-interest and court-congestion factors neutral. Both California and Maryland had an interest in the dispute, and the differences in the courts’ reported timing statistics were not meaningful enough to affect the decision.

Disposition

After weighing all the factors, the court concluded that Ocampo’s choice of forum was entitled to great deference and that the remaining section 1404(a) factors did not outweigh it. The court denied HeiTech’s motion to transfer venue. The opinion addressed the location of the case, not the merits of Ocampo’s employment claims.