Perez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Background

Sabrina Perez originally filed the case in the Northern District of California against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. The opinion states that Perez resides and works in New Mexico, while Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. has its main office in South Dakota. Wells Fargo Bank moved to transfer the case to the District of New Mexico. The court states that it would have granted that motion, but Perez filed an amended complaint instead.

The amended complaint added two named plaintiffs, neither of whom resides or works in California, and added Wells Fargo & Company as a defendant. Wells Fargo & Company is headquartered in San Francisco. Before the court ruled on the first transfer motion, the plaintiffs also sought permission to file a second amended complaint adding a named plaintiff who resides and works in the Central District of California.

Legal standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a federal district court may transfer a civil case to another district where it could have been filed when transfer would serve the interest of justice and the convenience of the parties and witnesses. The party seeking transfer must show that the case could have been brought in the proposed district and that convenience and fairness support moving it. The court considered the plaintiffs’ choice of forum, the convenience of the parties and witnesses, access to evidence, each court’s familiarity with the applicable law, possible consolidation, local interest, and court congestion and trial timing.

Court’s analysis

The court found that the plaintiffs’ choice of the Northern District deserved little weight because all named plaintiffs lived outside that district and the case was a representative action. It also stated that the original complaint should have been filed in New Mexico and that the later amendments appeared to be an effort to keep the case in a district where it should not originally have been filed.

The court concluded that California was arguably a better venue than New Mexico after the amendments, but that the Central District was more appropriate than the Northern District. At least one named plaintiff lived and worked in the Central District, making that district more convenient for the parties and witnesses. The court also found that the Central District was equally familiar with the California state-law claims.

The plaintiffs argued that the Northern District had a stronger connection because about 13% of all Senior Premier Bankers nationwide worked there and because Wells Fargo & Company was headquartered there. The court noted that no named or opt-in plaintiffs worked or resided in the Northern District. It also viewed the addition of Wells Fargo & Company as appearing to have been made to create a connection to the Northern District after the first transfer motion was filed.

The plaintiffs further argued that transfer could cause the Central District to decline jurisdiction over out-of-state opt-in plaintiffs because of uncertainty about applying Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California to cases under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court rejected that argument as appearing contrived. It explained that personal jurisdiction is assessed statewide, so if Wells Fargo & Company was subject to general personal jurisdiction in Northern California, it would likewise be subject to that jurisdiction in Southern California.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to transfer venue and ordered the Clerk to transfer the case to the Central District of California. The opinion does not resolve the plaintiffs’ underlying claims.