Suarez v. Harker

Background

Maria Suarez alleged that, while working in the Equal Employment Office of the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery in San Diego from 2016 to 2018, she experienced a hostile work environment, discrimination, and retaliation based on race, national origin, sex, age, and disability. She brought claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act against Carlos Del Toro in his official capacity as the Acting Secretary of the Navy.

Del Toro moved to transfer the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which allows a court to move a case to another proper federal district for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice. He also moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which asks whether the complaint adequately alleges a legally recognized claim.

Transfer Analysis

The parties agreed that venue was proper in the Southern District of California because the events underlying the claims occurred there. The court applied factors addressing convenience and fairness, including the plaintiff’s choice of forum, the locations connected to the claims, litigation costs, witnesses, and access to evidence.

The court found that Suarez’s choice of the Northern District and her lower litigation costs there somewhat favored keeping the case in that district. It gave those factors limited weight because the relevant events did not occur there and Suarez could participate in proceedings in the Southern District by video conference.

The factors concerning the location of the events strongly favored transfer. Suarez resided in the Southern District during the relevant period, the agency involved had an office there but none in the Northern District, all complained-of acts occurred there, and no events or employment decisions occurred in the Northern District.

The court also found that access to witnesses and proof favored transfer. Some former coworkers and managers remained in the Southern District, none were in the Northern District, and two of the three healthcare providers identified in the complaint had addresses of record in the Southern District. The court stated that those providers could be compelled to participate there and that transfer would reduce the burden of their voluntary participation. The factor concerning familiarity with the governing law was neutral.

Disposition

The court TRANSFERS the case to the Southern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404. It DENIES the motion to dismiss as moot. The opinion therefore resolves the venue issue but does not decide the merits of Suarez’s discrimination, retaliation, or disability claims.