Mims v. AMLI Management Company

Background

Giovanni Mims brought six claims arising from the end of his employment with AMLI Management Company, AMLI Residential Partners, LLC, and AMLI Residential Properties, L.P. The claims were retaliation, failure to prevent retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, violation of California Labor Code section 1102.5, and violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law.

Mims alleged that he reported cleanliness, mold, mildew, carpeting, and painting problems at tenant homes. He claimed that he then experienced adverse employment actions, including no longer being considered for an assistant manager position. He was later terminated for allegedly moving into an AMLI apartment a few days before he was authorized to do so. The complaint did not clearly identify where in California Mims worked or was terminated, but AMLI presented information that the relevant work, supervision, apartment, and alleged employment events were in or near Los Angeles County, within the Central District of California.

AMLI removed the case from Alameda County Superior Court and moved to transfer it under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which allows a federal court to transfer a case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. AMLI also relied alternatively on the venue provisions of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. Mims did not oppose the motion.

Court’s analysis

The court determined that the case could have been brought in the Central District because a substantial part of the events or omissions underlying Mims’s claims occurred in counties within that district. The court considered the applicable transfer factors, including the plaintiff’s choice of forum, the convenience of the parties and witnesses, access to evidence, each court’s familiarity with the governing law, local interests, and court congestion.

The court found that transfer was appropriate because AMLI asserted that Mims worked at a facility in the Central District and that AMLI had no office, facility, or residence in the Northern District. Key witnesses, including Janet Vargas and Rose Stolo, were said to live in or near the Central District. The relevant employment agreements were executed in Denver or Woodland Hills, California, and the apartment involved in Mims’s termination was in Los Angeles County. The court also accepted that relevant personnel files, agreements, lease materials, disciplinary notices, performance reviews, and emails were located in the Central District.

The court stated that deference to Mims’s choice of forum was substantially reduced because the complaint did not indicate that he resided in the Northern District and because the conduct giving rise to his claims did not occur there. It also concluded that venue was proper in the Central District under the Fair Employment and Housing Act because the alleged unlawful practices occurred there, relevant records were maintained there or nearby, and Mims would have worked there if his employment had continued.

Disposition

Judge William H. Orrick granted AMLI’s motion to transfer the case to the Central District of California. The court also vacated the motion hearing scheduled for May 27, 2020. The order addressed venue and transfer, not the merits of Mims’s six claims.