Vasquez v. Draper and Kramer

Background

Jose Vasquez filed a proposed collective and class action against Draper and Kramer Mortgage Corp. He asserted one claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law, and six claims under California law. The claims alleged failures to pay regular, overtime, minimum, and termination wages; failures to provide rest and meal periods; failure to reimburse business expenses; and unfair business practices.

Vasquez sought to represent a nationwide group for the federal claim and a California-wide group for the state-law claims. He worked as a loan officer for the defendant from September 2018 through July 2020 and performed his work in Santa Barbara. He alleged that he had worked on a mortgage loan involving property in Kensington, California, and that wages connected to that transaction remained unpaid.

The defendant moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a venue-transfer statute, to transfer the case from the Northern District of California to the Central District of California. Vasquez did not dispute that the case could have been brought in the Central District.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that § 1404(a) permits transfer for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The moving party must show that the proposed district is the more appropriate forum. The court considered the relevant convenience and public-interest factors.

The court gave Vasquez’s choice of the Northern District little to no deference. Although he identified a Kensington mortgage transaction and the defendant’s Berkeley office as connections to that district, the record showed that he lived and worked in Santa Barbara. A borrower witness stated that all meetings concerning the Kensington transaction occurred remotely, not in person outside Vasquez’s office. Vasquez also did not suggest that he performed his duties, had supervisors, or dealt with relevant policies in the Northern District.

The convenience of the parties and witnesses weighed heavily in favor of transfer. The defendant had nine California offices, eight of them in the Central District, including Vasquez’s Santa Barbara office. Vasquez lived there, worked there, and had worked with his direct supervisor there. Most of the defendant’s California senior management team worked from its Calabasas office. The court also found that the locations where most loan officers worked were relevant to the defendant’s asserted outside-sales exemption under federal and California law.

The court acknowledged that two non-party witnesses connected to the Kensington transaction lived in the Northern District. But it found that one witness’s expected testimony about a single transaction could not outweigh the convenience of the other parties and witnesses. The court treated access to evidence, the two districts’ familiarity with the applicable law, and possible consolidation with another case as neutral. It found that the Central District had a stronger local interest because nearly all potential California class members and all but one of the defendant’s California offices were there. Court congestion weighed against transfer because the Central District had significant vacancies and higher caseloads.

Disposition

Balancing the factors, the court concluded that the Central District of California was the more appropriate venue. It GRANTED the motion to transfer venue, directed the clerk to transfer the matter to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, and terminated Docket Number 20. The order addressed venue and did not decide the merits of Vasquez’s wage and employment claims. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers signed the order.