McCarrick v. Amazon.com Services LLC

Background

Amazon.com Services LLC moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer this action from the Northern District of California to the Eastern District of California. That statute permits a federal court to transfer a civil case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice when the case could have been brought in the other district.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that the party seeking transfer must show that the proposed district is the more appropriate forum. Relevant considerations include the plaintiff’s choice of forum; the convenience of the parties and witnesses; access to evidence; each court’s familiarity with the applicable law; the possibility of consolidating related claims; local interest; and the relative congestion and trial timing in the two courts. A defendant’s preference for another forum is not enough, and transfer cannot simply shift inconvenience from one party to the other.

The court found that neither the convenience of the parties or witnesses nor the interests of justice supported transfer. McCarrick alleged that she generally worked from home and traveled throughout California during her employment. The court also noted that most identified witnesses appeared to be located outside California. It therefore found little efficiency would result from transferring the action to the Eastern District of California.

Ruling

The court denied Amazon’s motion to transfer venue. The initial case-management conference remained scheduled for June 30, and the parties’ case-management statement remained due June 23. The order was signed by United States District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.