Slusher v. Big Lots Stores, Inc.

Background

Roxanne Slusher sued Big Lots Stores, Inc., Big Lots F&S, Inc., and unnamed defendants. The parties jointly stipulated to transferring the case from the Northern District of California to the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which permits transfer for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.

The stipulation described allegations that the defendants violated California wage-and-hour laws by failing to pay overtime and minimum wages; provide meal and rest periods or required premium payments; provide compliant wage statements; timely pay wages during and at the end of employment; properly compensate split shifts; and provide suitable seating. The stipulation also referred to claims under California's Private Attorneys General Act and the state's unfair-competition law. The defendants denied the allegations.

Reason for Transfer

The parties said they had executed a settlement agreement that, if finally approved and effective under its terms, would resolve the claims in this case and a related case pending in the Central District of California. They agreed to seek preliminary and final settlement approval in that district because the related litigation was more advanced there. The parties said that transferring the case would allow the cases to be consolidated for settlement purposes before Judge John A. Kronstadt.

The court stated that the Central District of California was a district where the case could have been brought because the defendants were subject to personal jurisdiction there. It also concluded that transfer for settlement of multiple cases in one proceeding served the interests of justice. The order noted that access to evidence and witness convenience did not weigh against transfer because the requested transfer was for settlement purposes, and that both courts were familiar with the applicable law.

Ruling

The court ordered that the matter be transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. It directed the clerk to provide a copy of the order to the clerk and chambers of the judge assigned to the related case. The opinion does not decide whether the wage-and-hour allegations are valid or whether the proposed settlement should receive final approval.