Kabasele v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc.

Background

Ulta moved to transfer this action from the Northern District of California to the Eastern District of California. Ulta relied first on the first-to-file rule, which can allow a court to transfer, pause, or dismiss a later-filed action when an earlier action involving the same parties and issues is pending in another district. Kabasele opposed the motion.

Kabasele had filed the Eastern District action fourteen days before filing this action. The court granted Ulta’s unopposed request to take judicial notice of filings from that earlier related proceeding.

Reasons for Denying Transfer

The court held that the first-to-file rule did not justify transfer because the two actions did not present substantially similar issues. In the Eastern District action, Kabasele challenged Ulta’s alleged policy of excluding commissions, nondiscretionary bonuses, and other compensation when calculating non-exempt employees’ regular pay rate. She also challenged alleged failures to provide compliant meal and rest breaks to non-exempt California employees.

This action instead alleged that, during Kabasele’s employment at an Ulta store in the Northern District, her supervisor made racially offensive comments and that Ulta terminated her in retaliation after she complained. The court found that Ulta had not shown any substantial overlap between those allegations and the issues in the Eastern District action.

Ulta also sought transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which permits transfer for the convenience of parties and witnesses when the required showing is made. The court found that Ulta had not made the required strong showing of inconvenience. Ulta pointed to Kabasele’s residence in Oregon and her attorney’s offices in the Eastern District, but it did not address the relevant transfer factors in sufficient detail. In particular, Ulta did not show that events underlying the harassment and retaliation claims occurred in the Eastern District or identify witnesses, their locations, and the substance and relevance of their testimony.

The court also stated that Kabasele’s choice of the Northern District was entitled to deference because the alleged harassment and retaliation occurred there.

Disposition

The court denied Ulta’s motion to transfer. It vacated the hearing scheduled for December 10, 2021 and decided the matter based on the parties’ written submissions. Judge Maxine M. Chesney ordered that it be so.