Case3:14-cv-00608-JCS Document296 Filed12/15/14 Page1 of 28

1 STEPHEN M. TILLERY (pro hac vice)

stillery@koreintillery.com
2 GARRETT R. BROSHUIS (pro hac vice)
gbroshuis@koreintillery.com
3 GIUSEPPE S. GIARDINA (pro hac vice)
ggiardina@koreintillery.com
4 KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
5 St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 241-4844
6 Facsimile: (314) 241-3525
7 GEORGE A. ZELCS (pro hac vice)
gzelcs@koreintillery.com
8 KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
205 North Michigan, Suite 1950
9 Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 641-9750
10
BRUCE L. SIMON (Bar No. 96241)
bsimon@pswlaw.com
11
BENJAMIN E. SHIFTAN (Bar No. 265767)
bshiftan@pswlaw.com
12
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
13 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
San Francisco, CA 94104
14 Telephone: (415) 433-9000
Facsimile: (415) 433-9008
15

DANIEL L. WARSHAW (Bar No. 185365)

dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
BOBBY POUYA (Bar No. 245527)
bpouya@pswlaw.com
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
Sherman Oaks, California 91403
Telephone: (818) 788-8300
Facsimile: (818) 788-8104

16 Plaintiffs Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel

17
18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

19

AARON SENNE, et al., Individually and on

20 Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated;
Plaintiffs,

21
22

CASE NO. 3:14-cv-00608-JCS (consolidated

with 3:14-cv-03289-JCS)
CLASS ACTION

vs.

23 OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF

BASEBALL, an unincorporated association
24 doing business as MAJOR LEAGUE
BASEBALL; et al.;
25
Defendants.
26

PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS

MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
Hearing date: Feb. 13, 2015, 2:00 p.m.
Courtroom: G, 15th Floor
Judge: Honorable Joseph C. Spero

27
28
3:14-cv-00608-JCS
Opposition to Defendants Motion to Transfer Venue

Case3:14-cv-00608-JCS Document296 Filed12/15/14 Page2 of 28

Table of Contents

3 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................1
4 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND .................................................................................1
5 1.

Summary of case and procedural history. ............................................................................................1

6 2.

The Northern District of California is convenient for the parties and witnesses..........................3

7 3.

A substantial amount of the relevant work was performed in or around this District. ................6

8 ARGUMENT........................................................................................................................................................8
9 1.
10
11 2.
12

Defendants motion should be denied because they failed to establish that personal
jurisdiction would have been present over all the parties in the Middle District of
Florida. ......................................................................................................................................................9
Defendants motion should be denied because the Middle District of Florida is not a
more convenient forum than the Northern District of California. .............................................. 11
A.

Plaintiffs choice of forum is entitled to deference because there is no evidence

of forum shopping. ................................................................................................................. 12

B.

The Northern District of California is more convenient for the parties, the
witnesses, and access to evidence. ........................................................................................ 14

C.

This Court is more familiar than the Middle District of Florida with California
law, under which many more violations are alleged. ......................................................... 19

17

D.

Feasibility of consolidation. ................................................................................................... 20

18

E.

California has a strong interest in this controversy. .......................................................... 20

19

F.

Access to evidence and availability of compulsory process does not support

transfer because the evidence is within the Courts reach. ............................................... 20

G.

The Middle District of Florida is no less congested than this Court. ............................. 21

13
14
15
16

20
21
22
23

H. Other factors cited by Defendants do not support a transfer.................................................. 22

The relative cost is either neutral or disfavors transfer. ................................................................... 22

24

Many events occurred in California and the parties have substantial contacts with
California.................................................................................................................................... 23

25

Many of the agreements were signed in California. ........................................................................ 23

26 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................. 23
27
28
3:14-cv-00608-JCS
Opposition to Defendants Motion to Transfer Venue

Case3:14-cv-00608-JCS Document296 Filed12/15/14 Page3 of 28

Table of Authorities

1
2
3
4

Cases
Cal. Writers Club v. Sonders,
C-11-02566 JCS, 2011 WL 4595020 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2011) (Spero, J.) ....................... 14, 17. 18

5 Commercial Lighting Products, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court,

537 F.2d 1078 (9th Cir. 1976) ......................................................................................................... 9, 11
6
Commodity Futures Trading Commn v. Savage,
611 F.2d 270 (9th Cir. 1979) ................................................................................................................. 9
7
8 Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co.,
805 F.2d 834 (9th Cir. 1986) .....................................................................................................8, 11, 14
9
Dytch v. Yoon,
No. C-10-02915-MEJ, 2011 WL 839421 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2011) .............................................. 11
10
11 Eberle v. City of Anaheim,
901 F.2d 814 (9th Cir. 1990) ............................................................................................................... 11
12
Goor v. Vignoles,
C 12-01794 DMR, 2012 WL 5499841 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2012) ............................................ 9, 11
13
14 Hawkes v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
No. CV-10-05957-EJD, 2012 WL 506569 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2012).......................................... 19
15
Hendricks v. StarKist Co.,
13-CV-729 YGR, 2014 WL 1245880 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2014) .......................................... passim
16
17 Hoffman v. Blaski,
363 U.S. 335 (1960) ............................................................................................................................ 8, 9
18
Holliday v. Lifestyle Lift, Inc.,
C 09-4995 RS, 2010 WL 3910143 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2010) ............................................. 13, 14, 17
19
20 In re Ferrero Litig.,
768 F. Supp. 2d 1074 (S.D. Cal. 2011) ...................................................................................... passim
21
Johnson v. VCG Holding Corp.,
767 F. Supp. 2d 208 (D. Me. 2011).................................................................................................... 12
22
23 Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc.,
211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2000) ........................................................................................................... 9, 11
24
Kabushiki Kaisha Stone Corp. v. Affliction, Inc.,
C 09-2742 RS, 2009 WL 3429560 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2009) ........................................................ 14
25
26 Koslofsky v. Santaturs, Inc.,
10 CIV. 9160 BSJ, 2011 WL 10894856 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2011) ......................................... 12, 13
27
28
3:14-cv-00608-JCS
Opposition to Defendants Motion to Transfer Venue

ii

Case3:14-cv-00608-JCS Document296 Filed12/15/14 Page4 of 28

1 Lou v. Belzberg,
834 F.2d 730 (9th Cir.1987) ................................................................................................................ 12
2
Machado v. CVS Pharmacy,
No. 13-cv-04501-JCS, 2014 WL 631038 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2014) ......................................... 9, 11
3
4 McKenzie v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.,
C-11-04965 JCS, 2012 WL 5372120 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2012) (Spero, J.).................................. 12
5
Roling v. E*Trade Sec., LLC,
756 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ..................................................................................... passim
6
7 Salinas v. OReilly Auto. Inc.,
358 F. Supp. 2d 569 (N.D. Tex 2005) ............................................................................................... 12
8
Van Slyke v. Capital One Bank,
503 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ..................................................................................... passim
9
10 Wren v. RGIS Inventory Specialists,
C-06-5778 JCS, 2007 WL 295549 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2007) (Spero, J.) ....................................... 12
11
12 Statutes
13 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) .............................................................................................................................................. 9
14 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)(A) ................................................................................................................................ 15
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3:14-cv-00608-JCS
Opposition to Defendants Motion to Transfer Venue

iii

Case3:14-cv-00608-JCS Document296 Filed12/15/14 Page5 of 28

INTRODUCTION

This case challenges the underpayment of minor league baseball players nationwide by Major

3 League Baseball (MLB) and its franchises. Far more MLB franchises are based in California than in
4 any other state, and far more named Plaintiffs reside in California than in any other state. More minor
5 leaguers (i.e., class members) come from California than any other state. A plethora of potential
6 witnesses reside and work in California (and perhaps more than in any other state), and a significant
7 amount of the events occurred (and continue to occur) in California.
Despite these factors supporting the convenience of this forum, Defendants attempt to restart

9 the case in their preferred forum of the Middle District of Florida. Defendants purport to show the
10 supposed advantages of the Florida forum using figures that are sometimes inaccurate, sometimes
11 irrelevant, and, in every instance, insufficient to justify transfer. Defendants motion should be denied
12 for at least three reasons: (1) Defendants fail to meet their threshold burden of demonstrating that a
13 Florida court could exercise personal jurisdiction over all Defendants; (2) Plaintiffs choice of forum is
14 entitled to deference, including in a class action, and, here, no convenience or interest-of-justice
15 factors merit disturbing that choice; and (3) Defendants motion seeks merely to shift the
16 inconvenience of litigation from the well-resourced corporate entities that comprise MLB to the
17 named Plaintiffs, a group of underpaid former minor leaguers.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

18

19 1. Summary of case and procedural history.

20

Plaintiffs, thirty-four former minor leaguers, challenge the wage scheme forced on them by

21 the cartel known as MLB. As required by MLB rules, Plaintiffs (like all similarly-situated minor
22 leaguers nationwide) signed uniform player contracts (UPCs) that were approved by MLB and the
23 Commissioner of Baseball.1 Under the UPC, all first-year players must earn the exact same salary
24
25
26
1

27

CAC, Dkt. 243, 15557.

28
3:14-cv-00608-JCS
Opposition to Defendants Motion to Transfer Venue

Case3:14-cv-00608-JCS Document296 Filed12/15/14 Page6 of 28

2
1 during the first year: currently $1,100 per month, paid only during the championship season. But

2 consistent with the UPC, Defendants required Plaintiffs to perform substantial work outside the
3 championship season, for instance, during spring training, the winter training period, and instructional
3
4 league periods. Yet Defendants do not pay for this work.

Thus, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants fail to pay any wages at all during certain work periods;

6 fail to pay a minimum wage during other months; and fail to pay overtime despite requiring minor
4
7 leaguers to often work in excess of fifty hours per week (and sometimes seventy or more). Plaintiffs

8 allege that these practices violate the Fair Labor Standards Act and several state wage and hour laws
5
9 (including California).

Defendants have not challenged the sufficiency of these allegations, and most Defendants

10

11 have answered Plaintiffs complaint. On May 23, 2014, however, certain Defendants filed a motion to
6
12 dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction, and Defendants also filed a motion to transfer venue
7
13 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). The Court granted Plaintiffs leave to take limited jurisdictional and

14 venue discovery, which confirmed Plaintiffs contention that Defendants greatly understated their
8
15 California contacts in their initial motions. A similar caseMarti, et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of
9
16 Baseball, et al., No. 3:14-cv-03289-RSwas consolidated with this action, and Plaintiffs filed the

17
18
19

See id., 168.

20

See, e.g., id., 16793.

21

See id.

See id., 489661.

22

6
Dkt. 115. The entities for the Atlanta Braves, Boston Red Sox, Cleveland Indians, Chicago White
23 Sox, Detroit Tigers, New York Yankees, Philadelphia Phillies, Pittsburgh Pirates, Tampa Bay Rays,
and Washington Nationals claimed a lack of personal jurisdiction. The entities for the Baltimore
24
Orioles later joined the motion. Dkt. 129.
25 7 Dkt. 118.

26
27

Dkt. 144.

Dkt. 235.

28
3:14-cv-00608-JCS
Opposition to Defendants Motion to Transfer Venue

Case3:14-cv-00608-JCS Document296 Filed12/15/14 Page7 of 28

10
1 Consolidated Amended Complaint on November 21, 2014. Defendants then re-filed their venue and
11
2 jurisdictional motions.

3 2. The Northern District of California is convenient for the parties and witnesses.
Plaintiffs. Among the key witnesses in this case will be the named Plaintiffs themselves, and the

5 heaviest concentration of those Plaintiffs is in California generally and this District in particular. Of
6 the 34 Plaintiffs, over 20 percent (7 Plaintiffs) currently reside in California. Three Plaintiffs reside in
12
7 this District, with a fourth Plaintiff living just outside the District in Solano County.

Using Defendants own dividing line for the country reveals that far more Plaintiffs live west

13
9 of the Mississippi River than east of it: 22 out of the 34 (65 percent). Many live in states clustered
14
10 around California: 4 in Colorado, and 1 each in Utah, Idaho, and Arizona. Adding these 7 Plaintiffs

11 to the 7 Plaintiffs who live in California reveals that over 40 percent of Plaintiffs live in or around
12 California.
In contrast, only a single named Plaintiff resides in Florida.15 No Plaintiffs live in a state

13

14 bordering Florida. Thus, whereas more than 20 percent of Plaintiffs live in California, less than 3 percent
15 of Plaintiffs reside in or around Florida.
Defendants and witnesses. The Northern District of California is also more convenient for

16

17 Defendants and other witnesses. Turning first to the franchise Defendants, out of the 30 MLB
18
19
20

10

Dkt. 243.

11

Dkt. 28186. Defendants re-filed their motions twice. Except for correcting the hearing dates, the
21 second filings appear to duplicate the initial filings. This Opposition responds to all the relevant
22 filings.
12
See CAC, Dkt. 243, 23, 25, 32, 37, 45, 51, 128. When the CAC was filed, Tim Pahuta lived in
23 New Jersey, but he recently moved to California for work and now resides there. See Pahuta Decl. The
three residing in this District are Kyle Woodruff (San Jose), Jake Kahaulelio (Windsor, California), and
24
Kris Watts (Fremont, California). Craig Bennigson (Benicia, California), lives in Solano County.
25 13 See CAC, Dkt. 243, 1952.

26
27

14

See id., 29, 33, 35, 36, 40, 47, 49.

15

Id., 26.

28
3:14-cv-00608-JCS
Opposition to Defendants Motion to Transfer Venue

Case3:14-cv-00608-JCS Document296 Filed12/15/14 Page8 of 28

16
1 franchises, 5 are located in this state. In contrast, no more than 2 franchises can be found in any
17
2 other state (including Florida). Two franchises (Oakland and San Francisco) reside in this District.

3 Only one franchise resides in the Middle District of Florida.

Turning to the other Defendants, MLB has its MLB Scouting Bureau, a central scouting

5 service for the recruitment of future minor leaguers that serves all MLB franchises, headquartered in
18
6 California. MLB is itself headquartered in New York, and Defendant Selig principally resides in
19
7 Wisconsin. Both locales require a plane flight to reach either Florida or California.

Defendants jurisdictional and venue responses confirm Defendants significant contacts with

9 California and underscore how a transfer would merely shift inconvenience from Defendants to
10 Plaintiffs. Defendants have over 250 employees principally working in California with responsibilities
20
11 related to minor leaguers. Nearly 200 such employees not only work but live in California. Some of

12 these employees are scouts who actively recruit minor leaguers (and who are often either former
13 coaches or players themselves), but many are directly responsible for managing and overseeing minor
14 leaguers. Even if scouts are removed from the calculation, Defendants still have over 250 employees
21
15 involved in their minor league operations who either reside or principally work in California. Of the

16 30 MLB franchises, 27 of them employ officials with minor league responsibilities who either live or
22
17 principally work in California. The franchises also have many more employeesoften high-level

18 officials such as Vice Presidents, General Managers, and Assistant General Managersfrequently
19
20
16

See Broshuis Decl., Ex. D, Team-by-Team Information, MLB.com.

17

22

CAC, Dkt. 243, 128.

18

CAC, Dkt. 243, 154; Broshuis Decl., Ex. E, Major League Baseball Scouting Bureau Q&A, MLB.com.

23

19

Dkt. 283, at 9 of 27.

21

20

Dkt. 283-1, Bloom Decl., Exs. ADD, Objections and Answers to Interrogatory No. 2; Dkt. 285-4,
Bruce Decl., Ex. 1, Objections and Answers to Interrogatory No. 2 [collectively hereinafter
25 Defendants Objections and Answers to Interrogatory No. 2].
24

26
27

21

Id.

22

Id.

28
3:14-cv-00608-JCS
Opposition to Defendants Motion to Transfer Venue

Case3:14-cv-00608-JCS Document296 Filed12/15/14 Page9 of 28

23
1 traveling to California on behalf of Defendants. Even eastern franchises have many employees either
24
2 residing or principally working in California.

Examining the limited discovery also confirms that many of Defendants statistics provided in

4 their briefs are inaccurate and misleading. In particular, Defendants wrongly claim that one-fifth of
5 employees with minor league operations principally work in Florida. Instead, even if the Baltimore
6 Orioles are included (they apparently were not included in Defendants original calculations), the
7 number is actually below 15 percent (and not substantially higher than California, which is around 12
25
8 percent). Defendants claim that more than 50 percent of Minor League managers, field managers,

9 coaches, trainers and coordinators reside in Florida is grossly inaccurate; the number is actually less
26
10 than 20 percent (at 269 out of 1358again not substantially higher than California).

The franchises employees overseeing the minor leagues and chiefly responsible for making

11

12 decisions and implementing policiesemployees such as general managers, along with those assistant
13 general managers and vice presidents with the primary minor league responsibilitiesare
14 concentrated more in California. Over 20 percent of the 98 such employees either reside or principally
27
15 work in California; less than 10 percent either reside or principally work in Florida.

As for MLB, it did not identify a single employee with minor league responsibilities either

16

17 residing or principally working in Florida. At least one MLB employee with such responsibilities,
18 Frank Robinson, Executive Vice President of Baseball Development, resides in California and within
19

23

Dkt. 283-1, Bloom Decl., Exs. AJ, Objections and Answers to Interrogatory No. 2; Dkt. 285-4,
20 Bruce Decl., Ex. 1, Orioles Objections and Answers to Interrogatory No. 2 [collectively PJ
Defendants Objections and Answers to Interrogatory No. 2].
21
24
See, e.g., Dkt. 283-1, Bloom Decl., Ex.. X, Mets Objections and Answers to Interrogatory No. 2
22 (identifying 12 employees with minor league responsibilities either residing or principally working in
California: a director of player development, a manager and several coaches, and several
23 coordinators); Bloom Decl., Ex. A Braves Objections and Answers to Interrogatory No. 2 (showing a
minor league manager and several other minor league employees either living or principally working in
24
California).
25 25 Defendants Objections and Answers to Interrogatory No. 2.
26
27

26

Id.

27

Id.

28
3:14-cv-00608-JCS
Opposition to Defendants Motion to Transfer Venue

Case3:14-cv-00608-JCS Document296 Filed12/15/14 Page10 of 28

28
1 this District. At least one franchise, the Angels, has no employees with minor league responsibilities
29
2 residing or principally working in Florida. At least three other franchises, the Giants, Athletics, and
30
3 Padres, have only a single such employee within Florida, and several other franchises have only two.

4 3. A substantial amount of the relevant work was performed in or around this District.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants require minor leaguers to perform substantial, unpaid work

6 during the months outside the season. During the off-seasons winter training months, for instance,
7 Defendants provide detailed work packets to minor leaguers and expect minor leaguers to perform
31
8 this work. Much of this unpaid work occurs in California since more minor leaguers come from

9 California than any other state, and, as Defendants know, many of these California minor leaguers
32
10 return to California during the winter training months. Plaintiffs thus allege and believe that all

11 Defendants employ many minor leaguers fromand inCalifornia; direct work performed in
33
12 California; and pay no salary for it.

The limited jurisdictional and venue discovery indeed confirmed that Defendants draft more

13

34
14 minor leaguers from California than any other state (including Florida). Plaintiffs declarations

15 confirm that California minor leaguers typically return to California during the winter training
16
17
18

28

Dkt. 283-1, Bloom Decl., Ex. K, MLBs Objections and Answers to Interrogatory No. 2.

19

29

Dkt. 283-1, Bloom Decl., Ex. L, Angels Objections and Answers to Interrogatory No. 2.

20

30

21

Dkt. 283-1, Bloom Decl., Exs. M (Athletics), Y (Padres), and Z (Giants), Objections and Answers
to Interrogatory No. 2.
31

See CAC, Dkt. 243, 17480; Khoury Decl. 7; Bennigson Decl. 7; Pahuta Decl. 7; Lawson
22 Decl. 78; Watts Decl. 611; Kahaulelio Decl. 5; Smith Decl. 4; Opitz Decl. 5; Woodruff
Decl. 5; Henderson Decl. 5; Giarraputo Decl. 56; McAtee Decl. 7 [collectively hereinafter
23 Declarations Describing Winter Work].
24
25

32

CAC, Dkt. 243, 12930; Declarations Describing Winter Work, supra note 31.

33

Id.

34
Dkt. 283-1, Bloom Decl., Exs. AJ, Objections and Answers to Interrogatory No. 5; Dkt. 285-4,
26 Bruce Decl., Ex. 1, Orioles Objections and Answers to Interrogatory No. 5 [collectively PJ
Defendants Objections and Answers to Interrogatory No. 5].
27

28
3:14-cv-00608-JCS
Opposition to Defendants Motion to Transfer Venue

Case3:14-cv-00608-JCS Document296 Filed12/15/14 Page11 of 28

35
1 months. Discovery revealed that an average of 24.7 minor leaguers per franchise maintain California
36
2 addresses each winter. When that number is multiplied across the 30 franchises, it suggests that

3 around 750 minor leaguers work and reside in this state every single winter training period.
Much of the other work at issue also occurs in California. The state has 12 minor league teams

37
5 located within itone of the highest numbers of any state. Of the named Plaintiffs, at least 15
38
6 nearly 50 percentworked at minor league teams based in California. Four named Plaintiffs (12
39
7 percent) worked in San Jose while assigned to the Giants minor league affiliate there, and those who

8 were assigned to other minor league teams based in California also worked in San Jose for road games
40
9 in the California League.

Looking at Defendants spring training sites, half are eastern and half are western15

10

41
11 franchises have sites in Florida and 15 have sites in Arizona.

Lastly, much of the recruitment of minor leaguers and the signing of contracts occurred in

12

13 California. Since more minor leaguers come from California than any other state, all teams have a
42
14 heavy scouting presence in the state ; the headquarters for the MLB Scouting Bureau is even located

15
16

35

Declarations Describing Winter Work, supra note 31.

36

Only five franchises, the Yankees, Orioles, White Sox, Indians, and Tigers, provided the
information on a per year basis. See Bloom Decl., Exs. CF, Objections and Answers to Interrogatory
18 No. 6; Bruce Decl., Ex. 1, Orioles Objections and Answers to Interrogatory No. 6. Two other
franchises provided the total number of players since 2008 who resided in CA during the winter
19 period but did not do so on a per year basis. The other franchises refused to provide any information.
17

20
21

37

Indeed, Defendants own declaration reveals that California has the third most minor league teams.
Dkt. 118-1, Woodfork Decl., Ex.A. Arizona, which of course borders California, has the second most.

38

CAC, Dkt. 243, 227 (Odle), 242 (Bennigson), 250 (Lawson), 270 (Kiel), 278 (Nicholson), 300
(Meade),
307 (Murray), 315 (Kahaulelio), 323 (Khoury), 333 (Pease), 350 (Gaston), 382 (Newby), 433
22
(Hilligoss), 476 (Weeks). Kyle Woodruff also worked during the season in San Jose. See Woodruff
23 Decl. 6.
39
CAC, Dkt. 243, 227 (Odle), 278 (Nicholson), 476 (Weeks); see also Woodruff Decl. 6.
24
40
See supra note 38.
25 41
See Broshuis Decl., Ex. F, Official Site of MLBs Cactus and Grapefruit Leagues, MLB.com.
26 42 See PJ Defendants Objections and Answers to Interrogatory No. 2, supra note 23 (identifying
scouts).
27
28
3:14-cv-00608-JCS
Opposition to Defendants Motion to Transfer Venue

Case3:14-cv-00608-JCS Document296 Filed12/15/14 Page12 of 28

43
1 in California. And though many Defendants insist their policies require UPCs to be signed at the

2 spring training sites, this claim is, at best, self-serving and misleading. At least in the past when the
3 relevant contracts were signed, the standard practice was to have most draftees quickly sign the UPC
44
4 in the draftees home state. The area scout would meet with the draftee, present the contract, and
45
5 have the draftee quickly sign the contract to expedite the process. For example, at least 6 Plaintiffs
46
6 (nearly 20 percent) specifically recall signing their UPCs in California. Others also remember signing
47
7 their contracts in their home states, and few remember signing the UPC in Florida. Similarly, teams

8 routinely require minor leaguers to sign contract addenda at their homes during the winter, which
48
9 establishes the minor leaguers salary for the upcoming season.

10

ARGUMENT

11

The defendant must make a strong showing of inconvenience to warrant upsetting the

12 plaintiffs choice of forum. Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir.
13 1986). Venue transfer is improper if it would merely shift rather than eliminate the inconvenience.
14 Id. Courts review the decision of whether or not to transfer venue for abuse of discretion. Id. at 842.
There are two steps to the venue transfer analysis under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). First, the moving

15

16 party must demonstrate that the action could have originally been brought in the transferee district,
17 i.e., that jurisdiction and venue would have been proper there. See Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335,
18 34244 (1960). Only if this first prong is satisfied, the court should then undertake an individualized,
19 case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness, which balances the plaintiffs interest in
20
21
22
23

43

See supra note X.

44

See Wyckoff Decl. 9; Watts Decl. 4; Bennigson Decl. 4; Lawson Decl. 5; Kahaulelio Decl.
4; Opitz Decl. 4; Woodruff Decl. 4; Henderson Decl. 4; Giarraputo Decl. 4; McAtee Decl. 6.
45

Id.

46

Watts Decl. 4; Bennigson Decl. 4; Lawson Decl. 5; Kahaulelio Decl. 4; Opitz Decl. 4;
Woodruff Decl. 4; Henderson Decl. 4; McAtee Decl. 6. Additionally, some opt-ins remember
25 signing their UPCs in California. See Giarraputo Decl. 4; Lewis Decl. 4.
24

26
27

47

See Lawson Decl. 5; Opitz Decl. 4.

48

Broshuis Decl., Exs. AC; Khoury Decl. 10; Watts Decl. 12.

28
3:14-cv-00608-JCS
Opposition to Defendants Motion to Transfer Venue

Case3:14-cv-00608-JCS Document296 Filed12/15/14 Page13 of 28

1 choosing a forum against the aggregated considerations of the convenience of witnesses and the
2 interests of justice. See Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 49899 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal
3 quotations omitted).
4

Neither step supports transfer here. Defendants have not even attempted to establish that

5 personal jurisdiction would lie in the Middle District of Florida for almost half of the franchises. Also,
6 the Middle District of Florida is not more convenientit is in fact less convenient for the majority of
7 the partiesand interests of justice favors this case remaining in the Northern District of California.
8 The Court should therefore deny the motion.
9 1. Defendants motion should be denied because they failed to establish that personal
jurisdiction would have been present over all the parties in the Middle District of Florida.
10
11

Defendants bear the burden of demonstrating that the case could have been brought in the

12 Middle District of Florida. 28 U.S.C. 1404(a); Machado v. CVS Pharmacy, No. 13-cv-04501-JCS, 2014
13 WL 631038, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2014) (Spero, J.) (citing Commodity Futures Trading Commn v.
14 Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979)). For purposes of this analysis, the fact that Defendants
15 could have consented to jurisdiction and venue in the Middle District of Florida is irrelevant.
16 Commercial Lighting Products, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 537 F.2d 1078, 1079 (9th Cir. 1976) ([D]efendants
17 consent to the transfer is irrelevant.); see also Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 34344 (1960) (But the
18 power of a District Court under 1404(a) to transfer an action to another district is made to depend
19 not upon the wish or waiver of the defendant but, rather, upon whether the transferee district was
20 one in which the action might have been brought by the plaintiff.).
21

If a moving party fails to definitively demonstrate that the transferee court would have

22 personal jurisdiction over all defendants in the action, the court must deny the motion to transfer.
23 Goor v. Vignoles, C 12-01794 DMR, 2012 WL 5499841, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2012). Two types of
24 personal jurisdiction exists: general and specific. Defendants have proven neither.
25

Defendants state that personal jurisdiction would exist over those MLB Clubs that (i)

26 conduct spring training in Florida; and (ii) have Minor League affiliates based in Florida or that play
27
28
3:14-cv-00608-JCS
Opposition to Defendants Motion to Transfer Venue

Case3:14-cv-00608-JCS Document296 Filed12/15/14 Page14 of 28

1 games in Florida. (Dkt. 283, at 17 of 27). This conclusory statement, however, contains a glaring
2 omission: it contains no jurisdictional analysis for nearly half of the Defendants.
Half of the MLB franchise Defendants15 of themdo not have spring training facilities in

4 Florida. Instead, these 15 franchises have spring facilities on the other side of the country, in Arizona.
49
5 Of these 15 franchises, at least 12 do not have any minor league affiliates based in Florida.

Instead of providing a basis for jurisdiction over these 12 franchises, Defendants provide only

7 a specious argument. They claim it is reasonable for all MLB Clubs to be called into court in Florida
8 because Minor League Baseball is headquartered there. But Minor League Baseball is a classic red
9 herring; it is a non-party and a separate entity from Defendants. Defendants are not members of
50
10 Minor League Baseball. It is not an employer of Plaintiffs and similarly situated minor leaguers.

11 Likewise, the actual minor league teams are not defendants because they exert little control over the
12 employment of minor leaguers; the MLB Rules and the agreements between Defendants and the
13 minor league teams make clear that the minor league entities main responsibility is stadium
51
14 maintenance and ticket sales. In contrast, Defendants hire, fire, and discipline the minor leaguers;

15 sign the UPCs with the minor leaguers; hire and fire the coaches and other personnel supervising the
16 minor leaguers; pay the salaries of the minor leaguers; and develop and implement the employment
52
17 policies for the minor leaguers.

If Defendants are claiming that the acts of the entity known as Minor League Baseball are

18

19 somehow imputed to them, they have failed to explain that jurisdictional imputation. After all, 11 of
20 the Defendants have claimed that the acts of MLB cannot be imputed to them, even though those 11
21 Defendants are members of MLB. (See Dkt. 281, at 17 of 28). If Defendants are claiming some other
22
49
The following 12 MLB franchises do not have minor league affiliates in Florida: Arizona
23 Diamondbacks, Cleveland Indians, Colorado Rockies, Chicago White Sox, Kansas City Royals, Los
Angeles Angels, Los Angeles Dodgers, Oakland Athletics, San Diego Padres, Seattle Mariners, San
24
Francisco Giants, and Texas Rangers. See Dkt. 118-1, Woodfork Decl., Ex. A.
25 50 See Broshuis Decl., Ex. G, General History, MiLB.com.

26
27

51

See CAC, Dkt. 243, at 16166.

52

Id.

28
3:14-cv-00608-JCS
Opposition to Defendants Motion to Transfer Venue

10

Case3:14-cv-00608-JCS Document296 Filed12/15/14 Page15 of 28

1 basis for exercising personal jurisdiction over the 12 Defendants lacking Florida spring training sites
2 or Florida minor league affiliates, they similarly failed to explicate the basis of their position.
3 Importantly, though, reliance on any theory of personal jurisdiction would likely conflict with the
4 positions taken by the 11 Defendants claiming a lack of personal jurisdiction in California.
5

In sum, Defendants have not provided any basis for a Florida court to exercise personal

6 jurisdiction over at least 12 MLB franchises. For purposes of this analysis, these Defendants cannot
7 consent to jurisdiction in Florida. Commercial Lighting Products, Inc., 537 F.2d at 1079. Defendants
8 cannot raise new facts or different legal arguments in the reply brief than those presented in the
9 moving papers. Dytch v. Yoon, No. C-10-02915-MEJ, 2011 WL 839421, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7,
10 2011); see also Eberle v. City of Anaheim, 901 F.2d 814, 818 (9th Cir. 1990). Thus, Defendants fail to meet
11 their preliminary burden, and the Court should deny Defendants motion on this basis alone. Goor,
12 2012 WL 5499841, at *4, *6.
13 2. Defendants motion should be denied because the Middle District of Florida is not a more
convenient forum than the Northern District of California.
14
15

Even if the Court proceeds to the second questionwhether the convenience of parties and

16 witnesses and the interests of justice favors transferthe Court should still deny this motion. Courts
17 consider a variety of factors when assessing convenience and the interests of justice, including: (1) the
18 plaintiffs choice of forum; (2) convenience to parties; (3) convenience to witnesses; (4) access to
19 evidence; (5) familiarity of each forum with the governing law; (6) feasibility of consolidation of
20 claims; (7) local interests in the controversy; (8) relative court congestion in the proposed forums.
21 Machado, 2014 WL 631038, at *3 (Spero, J.); see also Jones, 211 F.3d at 49899 (listing similar factors).
22 Courts will also look at where agreements were signed. See Jones, 211 F.3d at 498. The defendant
23 must make a strong showing of inconvenience to warrant upsetting the plaintiffs choice of forum.
24 Decker Coal Co., 805 F.2d at 843.
25
26
27
28
3:14-cv-00608-JCS
Opposition to Defendants Motion to Transfer Venue

11

Case3:14-cv-00608-JCS Document296 Filed12/15/14 Page16 of 28

A. Plaintiffs choice of forum is entitled to deference because there is no evidence of

forum shopping.

1
2

In the absence of forum shopping, the plaintiffs choice of forum is entitled to deference,

4 even in a class action. Hendricks v. StarKist Co., 13-CV-729 YGR, 2014 WL 1245880, at *23 (N.D. Cal.
5 Mar. 25, 2014); Roling v. E*Trade Sec., LLC, 756 F. Supp. 2d 1179, 118586 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (citing
6 Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir.1987)); Van Slyke v. Capital One Bank, 503 F. Supp. 2d 1353,
7 1363 (N.D. Cal. 2007). This Court has previously granted deference to a plaintiffs choice of forum in
8 class actions. McKenzie v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., C-11-04965 JCS, 2012 WL 5372120 (N.D.
9 Cal. Oct. 30, 2012) (Spero, J.) (stating in a class action that, even though no Plaintiffs were California
10 residents, their choice of forum is still given some deference in the absence of forum shopping);
11 Wren v. RGIS Inventory Specialists, C-06-5778 JCS, 2007 WL 295549, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2007)
12 (Spero, J.) (stating in a wage and hour class action that [t]he defendant must make a strong showing
13 of inconvenience to upset the plaintiff's choice of forum).
Courts also afford more deference to a plaintiffs forum choice in an FLSA collective action

14

15 than in a standard class action. See Johnson v. VCG Holding Corp., 767 F. Supp. 2d 208, 216 (D. Me.
16 2011) (The Court concludes that a plaintiffs choice of forum in a FLSA case is entitled to more
17 deference than the choice of forum in Rule 23 class action cases.); accord Koslofsky v. Santaturs, Inc., 10
18 CIV. 9160 BSJ, 2011 WL 10894856, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2011) (same); Salinas v. OReilly Auto.
19 Inc., 358 F. Supp. 2d 569, 571 (N.D. Tex. 2005) (same). After all, by arming the FLSA with the opt-in
20 mechanism instead of the Rule 23 mechanism, Congress intended to give plaintiffs considerable
21 control over the bringing of a FLSA action. Koslofsky, 2011 WL 10894856, at *2.
Defendants have not alleged (and cannot allege) that forum shopping occurred, and there is

22

23 no evidence of it. When some parties have ties to the district, it suggests that plaintiff is not forum
24 shopping. Hendricks, 2014 WL1245880, at *3. Vastly more of the named Plaintiffs (7) currently live in
53
25 California than any other state, and 3 Plaintiffs live within the Northern District of California. Two

26
27
28

53

See supra Factual Background, The Northern District of California is convenient for the parties and
(footnote continued)
3:14-cv-00608-JCS
Opposition to Defendants Motion to Transfer Venue

12

Case3:14-cv-00608-JCS Document296 Filed12/15/14 Page17 of 28

1 franchise Defendants have their principal places of business within this District, and 7 Plaintiffs (over
54
2 20 percent) were employed by those Defendants (including 1 of the original 3 Plaintiffs). Four

3 Plaintiffs performed work for the San Francisco Giants at their minor league affiliate within this
55
4 District. At least 7 Plaintiffs were living in California at the time they signed their contracts, and 6
56
5 specifically remember signing their contracts in California. Nearly half of Plaintiffs (15) worked for
57
6 Defendants at their minor league affiliates based in California.

These numbers establish that many Plaintiffs and many Defendants possess significant

8 connections to this District, so plaintiffs choice of forum carries significant weighteven in a class
9 action. Roling, 756 F. Supp. 2d at 1186; accord Hendricks, 2014 WL1245880, at *23 (reaching same
10 conclusion); In re Ferrero Litig., 768 F. Supp. 2d 1074, 1079 (S.D. Cal. 2011) (granting deference to
11 choice of forum in a class action [b]ecause some of the operative facts occurred in this district, and
12 Plaintiffs reside in this district and did not engage in forum shopping).
Other factors provide further support for deferring to Plaintiffs forum choice. For example,

13

14 this case alleges a large California subclass, many events occurred here, and many putative members
15 suffered injuries within this District. See Holliday v. Lifestyle Lift, Inc., C 09-4995 RS, 2010 WL 3910143,
16 at *6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2010) (showing some deference to plaintiffs choice of forum in a wage and
17 hour class action because of a California subclass and because events occurred within this District).
18 Plaintiffs further allege an FLSA collective, which warrants greater deference than regular Rule 23
19 class actions. See, e.g., Koslofsky, 2011 WL 10894856, at *2.
Consequently, this factor weighs heavily against transfer since deference should be accorded

20

21 to Plaintiffs choice of forum.

22
23 witnesses.
54
See id.
24
55
See supra Factual and Procedural Background, A substantial amount of the work was performed in
25 or around this District.
26
27

56

Id.

57

Id.

28
3:14-cv-00608-JCS
Opposition to Defendants Motion to Transfer Venue

13

Case3:14-cv-00608-JCS Document296 Filed12/15/14 Page18 of 28

B. The Northern District of California is more convenient for the parties, the
witnesses, and access to evidence.

1
2

When a proposed forum would simply shift the burden from some parties and witnesses to

4 other parties and witnesses, transfer is inappropriate. Decker Coal Co., 805 F.2d at 843; Hendricks, 2014
5 WL1245880, at *4; Cal. Writers Club v. Sonders, C-11-02566 JCS, 2011 WL 4595020, at *13 (N.D. Cal.
6 Oct. 3, 2011) (Spero, J.); Kabushiki Kaisha Stone Corp. v. Affliction, Inc., C 09-2742 RS, 2009 WL 3429560,
7 at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2009). When assessing convenience, courts afford less weight to the
8 convenience of a businesss current employees than to other witnesses since a business can compel its
9 own employees attendance. Hendricks, 2014 WL1245880, at *3; Cal. Writers Club, 2011 WL 4595020,
10 at *13 (Spero, J.). A defendant proposing a transfer should identify specific witnesses that would be
11 inconvenienced by litigating in the transferor district, and supply specifics about the proposed
12 testimony. Cal. Writers Club, 2011 WL 4595020, at *14; Holliday, 2010 WL 3910143, at *7; Kabushiki
13 Kaisha Stone Corp., 2009 WL 3429560, at *3; In re Ferrero Litig., 768 F. Supp. 2d at 1080.
The parties. This District is more convenient for more parties than the Middle District of

14

15 Florida, and transferring the action would merely shift the burden from some parties to other parties.
16 While thousands of potential witnesses exist for this case, only one group will certainly provide
58
17 testimony: the named Plaintiffs. Far more Plaintiffs (7) reside in California than any other state.
59
18 Three live within this District, and a fourth lives just outside the district but still in the Bay Area.

19 Another 7 Plaintiffs live in nearby states, and two-thirds (22 out of 34) live west of the Mississippi
60
20 River. On the contrary, only one Plaintiff lives in Florida and no Plaintiff lives in a state bordering
61
21 Florida. This District is clearly more convenient for Plaintiffs, and transferring the case would make

22 it more difficult and costly for a majority of Plaintiffs to appear in court. See Van Slyke, 503 F. Supp.
23
58

24

See supra Factual and Procedural Background, The Northern District of California is convenient for
the parties and witnesses.

25

59

Id.

60

Id.

61

Id.

26
27
28

3:14-cv-00608-JCS
Opposition to Defendants Motion to Transfer Venue

14

Case3:14-cv-00608-JCS Document296 Filed12/15/14 Page19 of 28

1 2d at 1363 (To send this case to Virginia would be a financial hardship on the California plaintiff and
2 would compromise lead plaintiffs ability to attend hearings.).
This District is also convenient for Defendants. Many more Defendants (5) have their

62
4 principal places of business in California than any other state. Only two Defendants have their

5 principal places of business in Florida, and only one Defendant has its principal place of business
63
6 within the Middle District of Florida.

Defendants focus on the sites of their spring training facilities, but that focus does not support

8 a transfer. Although 15 Defendants have training facilities in Florida, 15 other Defendants have
64
9 training facilities in Arizona (which, of course, borders California). For those 15 Defendants with

10 spring facilities in Arizona, how can Florida be more convenient than Californiaespecially when five
11 of those Defendants are based in California and two Defendants are based within this District?
Thus, this factor weighs against transfer because this District is more convenient for more

12

13 parties than the Middle District of Florida, and a transfer would merely shift the burdens.
Other party witnesses. The location of other party witnesses also weighs against transfer. When

14

15 assessing convenience, the trial is what matters because depositions will be taken at a location
16 convenient for the deponent rather than the District where the action is pending. See Fed. R. Civ.
17 Proc. 45(c)(1)(A); Roling, 756 F. Supp. 2d at 1186 (E*Trade concedes that the depositions of the New
18 York witnesses will be taken in New York, without any inconvenience to these witnesses.); Van
19 Slyke, 503 F. Supp. 2d at 1363. Thus, the only relevant consideration is the location of witnesses at the
20 time of trialnot during the course of discovery.
Defendants focus on the location of minor league players during the season, but the parties

21

65
22 have agreed to hold the trial during the off-season to avoid disrupting Defendants business. Thus,

23
24
25

62

Id. The Court has, of course, already placed limits on the number of witnesses who can provide
deposition testimony, Dkt. 187, 191, and similar limits would likely be placed at trial.
63

Id.

26

64

Id.

27

65

28

See Dkt. 287, 18 (Trial). The Court recently moved the trial date to February 6, 2017, Dkt. 295,
(footnote continued)
3:14-cv-00608-JCS
Opposition to Defendants Motion to Transfer Venue

15

Case3:14-cv-00608-JCS Document296 Filed12/15/14 Page20 of 28

1 the locations of the actual minor league teams are irrelevant for this analysis. The location of the
2 players themselves is the salient point.
As demonstrated more fully above in the statement of facts, at the time of trial, more players

4 and former players will be found in California than Florida. Discovery revealed an average of 24.7
5 minor leaguers with California off-season addresses per franchise each winter training period,
66
6 meaning around 750 current minor leaguers will likely be in California at the time of trial. Many

7 more former minor leaguers (who are putative class members) will also be there. Thus, Defendants
8 statement that only an infinitesimal fraction of minor leaguers will ever be in California, (Dkt. 283,
9 at 19 of 27), is both false and hyperbolic.
Many of Defendants employees will also be residing in California at the time of trial for

10

11 similar reasons. Common sense suggests that the 5 Defendants based in California (and 13
12 Defendants based west of the Mississippi River) will have many more employees living close to this
67
13 District, and all 30 teams have some employees based in California. Even East Coast teams such as

14 the Washington Nationals, New York Mets, Miami Marlins, Baltimore Orioles, and Boston Red Sox
15 have high-ranking employees, such as vice presidents or directors of player development or baseball
68
16 operations, who reside in California. In fact, Defendants discovery responses revealed over 250
69
17 employees with minor league responsibilities either residing or principally working in California. Of

18 the higher level employees with minor league responsibilities (such as GMs and those assistant GMs
19
20
which does not change the analysis because that date is still before minor league spring training for
21 most teams and their minor league employees. And as noted, Defendants can compel their own
22 employees to testify at trial, and the Court has already placed limits on the number of persons who
can provide testimony.
23 66 See supra Factual and Procedural Background, A substantial amount of the work was performed in
or around this District.
24
67
See supra Factual and Procedural Background, The Northern District of California is convenient for
25 the parties and witnesses.
26
27

68

Id.

69

Id.

28
3:14-cv-00608-JCS
Opposition to Defendants Motion to Transfer Venue

16

Case3:14-cv-00608-JCS Document296 Filed12/15/14 Page21 of 28

70
1 with minor league responsibilities), over twice as many are based in California than Florida. Such

2 individuals will provide critical testimony about minor league operations and employment policy
3 decisions.
Examining the limited discovery also confirms that many of Defendants statistics provided in

5 their briefing are inaccurate and misleading. In particular, Defendants wrongly claim that one-fifth of
6 employees with minor league operations principally work in Florida. Instead, even if the Baltimore
7 Orioles are included (they apparently were not included in Defendants original calculations), the
8 number is actually below 15 percent (and not substantially higher than California, which is around 12
71
9 percent). Defendants claim that more than 50 percent of Minor League managers, field managers,

10 coaches, trainers and coordinators reside in Florida is grossly inaccuratethe number is actually less
72
11 than 20 percent (at 269 out of 1358again not substantially higher than California). And even if

12 slightly more such employees reside in Florida than in California, well over 100 such employees reside
13 in California, providing more than enough employees to provide this form of testimony.
Defendants fail to provide specifics about inconvenienced witnesses. The Court should also deny the

14

15 motion because Defendants fail to provide any specifics about which witnesses, either party or non16 party, would be inconvenienced by litigating in Plaintiffs chosen forum or about the importance of
17 their testimony. See Cal. Writers Club, 2011 WL 4595020, at *14 (Spero, J.) (denying a motion to
18 transfer based in part on this issue).
As an initial matter, Defendants identify no non-party witnesses whatsoever. The convenience

19

20 of non-party witnesses is paramount, see, e.g., Hendricks, 2014 WL 1245880, at *3, but Defendants
21 identify none who would be inconvenienced by litigation in this Court. Plaintiffs even requested this
73
22 information via an interrogatory, and Defendants refused to provide specifics. Defendants, as the

23
24

70

Id.

25

71

Defendants Objections and Answers to Interrogatory No. 2, supra note 20.

26

72

Id.

27

73

28

Dkt. 283-1, Bloom Decl., Exs. AJ, Objections and Answers to Interrogatory No. 14; Id., Exs. L to
(footnote continued)
3:14-cv-00608-JCS
Opposition to Defendants Motion to Transfer Venue

17

Case3:14-cv-00608-JCS Document296 Filed12/15/14 Page22 of 28

1 moving party, bear the burden of identifying inconvenienced witnesses with specificity. See Holliday,
2 2010 WL 3910143, at *7 (Defendants do not mention with any specificity any third party witness on
3 whom they intend to rely.); In re Ferrero Litig., 768 F. Supp. 2d at 1080 (Defendant does not identify
4 any specific potential witnesses). Defendants failure to identify inconvenienced non-party
74
5 witnesses tips this factor against transfer.

As to party witnesses, Defendants merely allude tangentially to a generalized inconvenience

7 that may be suffered, for instance, by MLB or Defendant Selig. (Dkt. No. 283, at 20 of 27.) But MLB
8 and Defendant Selig are named parties whose convenience carries reduced weight. See Cal. Writers
75
9 Club, 2011 WL 4595020, at *13 (Spero, J.); Hendricks, 2014 WL 1245880, at *3. Also, Defendants fail

10 to meet their burden of describing with specificity what testimony would be offered and are even
11 seeking to block any attempt to depose Defendant Selig (see Dkt. 178, at 11 of 24), so Defendants fail
12 to identify specific inconveniences to specific party witnesses.
13

In contrast to Defendants, this Opposition identifies specific individuals with crucial

14 information who would be inconvenienced by a transfer to Florida because 7 named Plaintiffs reside
76
15 in California, an additional 7 reside in nearby states, and 65 percent reside west of the Mississippi.

16 These named Plaintiffs will almost certainly provide testimony at a trial, and to force them to travel
17 across the country to Florida would be a great burdenboth financially and otherwise. See Van Slyke,
18
19 DD, Objections and Answers to Interrogatory No. 4; Dkt. 285-4, Bruce Decl., Ex. 1, Objections and
20 Answers to Interrogatory No. 14.
74
Defendants might point to the location of Minor League Baseball within Florida, but, again, this is a
21 red herring. Minor League Baseball is unlikely to provide any testimony in this case because they do
control the important aspects of this case (such as amount of wages paid, when wages are paid, what
22
constitutes work, how hours are calculated, and amount of hours worked).
23 75 Further, the Court may consider how, in the individualized circumstances of this case, the routine
inconveniences of air travel may impact the particular party witnesses likely to be called. Here, all such
24 witnesses are, by definition, athletes, coaches, scouts, and executivespersons who, in a very real
25 sense, travel for a living: for road games, scouting trips, public appearances, and the like. Any burden
placed on such persons by having to travel is reduced in this case.
26 76 See supra Factual Background, The Northern District of California is convenient for the parties and
witnesses.
27

28
3:14-cv-00608-JCS
Opposition to Defendants Motion to Transfer Venue

18

Case3:14-cv-00608-JCS Document296 Filed12/15/14 Page23 of 28

1 503 F. Supp. 2d at 1363. The vast disparity in means between Plaintiffs (former minor leaguers who
2 received sub-legal wages) and Defendants (business entities whose record-setting revenues are widely
3 reported) accentuates the unfairness of placing this undue burden on Plaintiffs. See Hendricks, 2014
4 WL 1245880, at *5 (explaining that disparity in means between party seeking and party opposing
5 transfer is a relevant consideration).
6

These factors strongly disfavor transferring the case to the Middle District of Florida because

7 more parties and witnesses would be inconvenienced, and the burdens in this nationwide lawsuit
8 would simply shift from some to others. The motion to transfer should be denied.
9
10
11

C. This Court is more familiar than the Middle District of Florida with California law,
under which many more violations are alleged.
Plaintiffs bring an FLSA action and related state law claims, many of which arise under

12 California law. District courts are equally capable of applying federal law, Hawkes v. Hewlett-Packard
13 Co., No. CV-10-05957-EJD, 2012 WL 506569, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2012), so the disposition of
14 this factor rests on the Courts respective familiarity with state law. While courts are presumed to be
15 capable of interpreting another states laws, see Roling, 756 F. Supp. 2d at 118687, California district
16 courts are more familiar with the California laws governing the claims here, Hendricks, 2014
17 WL1245880, at *5; accord In re Ferrero Litig., 768 F. Supp. 2d at 1081 (same); Van Slyke, 503 F. Supp. 2d
18 at 1366 (Since this order has determined that California law should govern, at least as to the
19 California claims, it would be better to have a judge familiar with California law to preside over this
20 case.).
21

Here, Plaintiffs bring far more claims under California law (8) than any other state.

22 Defendants plead at least eleven affirmative defenses under California lawagain far more than any
23 other state. And unlike the one affirmative defense Defendants plead under Florida law, many of the
24 California affirmative defenses do not simply mirror the FLSA defenses. Having a court more familiar
25 with these California claims and defenses, such as the claims and defenses emanating from
26 Californias Private Attorney General Act and Californias Unfair Business Practices Act, would yield
27 significant judicial economies.
28
3:14-cv-00608-JCS
Opposition to Defendants Motion to Transfer Venue

19

Case3:14-cv-00608-JCS Document296 Filed12/15/14 Page24 of 28

Given the predominance of claims and defenses arising under California law, this factor

2 disfavors transfer.
3

D. Feasibility of consolidation.

This action was filed in this District over ten months ago and the parties have already made

5 substantial progress. A related case was also filed within this District and consolidated with the Senne
6 action. No other known cases have been filed in the Middle District of Florida or any other district,
7 but the first-to-file rule would favor consolidating any other cases with the Senne action and
8 maintaining the action in this District. See In re Ferrero Litig., 768 F. Supp. 2d at 1082. After all, the two
9 extant cases have been consolidated here and have made considerable progress here. Thus, this factor
10 disfavors transfer.
11

E. California has a strong interest in this controversy.

12

Defendants acknowledge Californias strong interest in this controversy. (Dkt. No. 283, at 26

13 of 27). They then conclude that Floridas interest is similar and that this factor is therefore
14 neutral. Id. A neutral factor, by definition, does not support upsetting Plaintiffs choice of forum.
15 For this reason alone, this factor favors denial of Defendants motion.
16

Should the Court inquire into the relative interests of California and Florida, Californias is

17 greater. More of the putative class likely resides in California than any other state, and Plaintiffs assert
18 eight claims under California lawfar more than any other state. The predominance of California
19 class members and claims underscores Californias greater interest in this controversy. See Van Slyke,
20 503 F. Supp. 2d at 1365 (observing that Californias local interest in a dispute weighed against transfer
21 where a large fraction of a nationwide class and the entirety of a separate California-based state-law
22 class resided in California). This factor consequently disfavors transfer.
23
24

F. Access to evidence and availability of compulsory process does not support

transfer because the evidence is within the Courts reach.

25

The factor of access to evidence does not favor transfer. Under revised Rule 45(c)(1), a Court

26 can compel to trial a witness residing, working, or regularly doing business in a state. Again, more
27 parties reside in California than in any other state, and a plethora of potential witnesses either reside
28
3:14-cv-00608-JCS
Opposition to Defendants Motion to Transfer Venue

20

Case3:14-cv-00608-JCS Document296 Filed12/15/14 Page25 of 28

1 or principally work in California. Approximately 750 minor leaguers reside in California during the
2 winter work period, and over 250 of Defendants employees with minor league responsibilities reside
77
3 or principally work in California. Twice as many high level officials reside or principally work in
78
4 California than in Florida, and many more routinely travel to California for business. Thus a

5 substantial number of potential witnesses can be compelled to a trial in California.

Also worth noting, in similar wage and hour cases, plaintiffs often rely more on documentary

7 proof (contracts, policies, paystubs, etc.) than testimonial proof. Since documents can be converted to
8 electronic files, they can be viewed anywhere. Roling, 756 F. Supp. 2d at 1187 (Because evidence will
9 be produced electronically, transfer will provide no greater access to evidence.); accord Hendricks, 2014
10 WL 1245880, at *4. Even if paper documents are produced, more Defendants (5) are based in
11 California than Florida (2), making California a convenient locale.
12

Since this Courts access to proof is substantial, this factor weighs against transfer.

13

G. The Middle District of Florida is no less congested than this Court.

14

When examining court congestion, courts examine not only time to trial but also other factors,

15 such as filings per judgeship. See In re Ferrero Litig., 768 F. Supp. 2d at 1082. If the congestion statistics
16 differ only marginally, then this factor does not favor transfer; after all, statistics on court congestion
17 do not accurately predict the outcome of a specific action. See Roling, 756 F. Supp. 2d at 1187. If other
18 factors do not favor transfer, court congestion is not a reason to transfer a case. Hendricks, 2014 WL
19 1245880, at *6.
The below table provides court congestion statistics for both the Northern District of

20

21 California and the Middle District of Florida.79 While one metric shows this Court as being more
22
23

77

See supra Factual Background, The Northern District of California is convenient for the parties and
24 witnesses.
25

78

See id.

79
Defendants puzzlingly relied on September of 2013 data even though more recent data is available,
26 but, to be consistent, the same date is used for information in the table. Regardless, the numbers are
similar for later periods. See Broshuis Decl., Ex. H, Fedl Court Mgmt. Statistics Archive, USCourts.gov.
27

28
3:14-cv-00608-JCS
Opposition to Defendants Motion to Transfer Venue

21

Case3:14-cv-00608-JCS Document296 Filed12/15/14 Page26 of 28

1 congested, many other metrics show that the Middle District of Florida is more congested. This
2 District has a shorter median time to disposition, less civil filings per judgeship, and fewer trials per
3 judge. Thus, the statistics on the whole disfavor transfer.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Court Congestion: September 2013 (date used by Defendants)

N.D. California
M.D. Florida
Civil filings per judgeship
442
563
Weighted filings per
618
676
judgeship
Median time from filing to
7.6 months
9.2 months
disposition (civil)
Median time from filing to
27.4 months
19.8 months
trial (civil)
Trials completed per judge
10
22

12

Lastly, the case has made progress here, and it would likely be decided more quickly here

13 because a transfer would cause delays and result in a later trial. See Van Slyke, 503 F. Supp. 2d at 1365.
14 This too weighs against transfer.
15

H. Other factors cited by Defendants do not support a transfer.

16

The relative cost is either neutral or disfavors transfer.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Given that more Defendants and more Plaintiffs are located within this District than the
Middle District of Florida, litigating here would be more economically efficient. Again, 7 named
Plaintiffs reside in California (over 20 percent) but only 1 resides in Florida; another 7 reside in states
near California; and 65 percent reside west of the Mississippi River.80 Defendants would force these
Plaintiffsthe true key witnessesto fly across the country to supply testimony, which would be
grossly uneconomical. Also, far more Defendants (5 compared to 2) are based in California, and a glut
of witnesses either lives or principally works in California.

24
25
26
27

80

See supra Factual Background, The Northern District of California is convenient for the parties and
witnesses.

28
3:14-cv-00608-JCS
Opposition to Defendants Motion to Transfer Venue

22

Case3:14-cv-00608-JCS Document296 Filed12/15/14 Page27 of 28

Defendants again rely on the same false and misleading numbers to argue to the contrary. The

2 Court should reject Defendants arguments because this factor actually disfavors transfer.
3

Many events occurred in California and the parties have substantial contacts with California.

As already discussed, more minor leaguers come from California than any other state and

5 most return to California to perform months of off-season work without pay. Far more Plaintiffs
6 reside in this District than in the Middle District of Florida, and more Defendants are located in this
7 District. Substantial minor league play also occurs in this State and this District, and Defendants
8 conduct business in California throughout the year.
Because Plaintiffs are concentrated in California, this factor favors Plaintiffs choice of forum.

9
10

Many of the agreements were signed in California.

11

Defendants assert that the Clubs usual practice is to have UPCs signed at spring training

12 sites. (Dkt. 283, at 23 of 27). But, at least when it comes to past practices, common industry
81
13 knowledge belies this myth. Six Plaintiffs specifically remember signing their UPCs in California, and

14 many other Plaintiffs specifically recall signing their contracts at locations other than the spring
82
15 training sites. Very few recall signing contracts at spring training sites. The Plaintiffs also routinely
83
16 signed contract addenda in California that established their salaries for upcoming seasons. Despite

17 Defendants self-serving policies to the contrary, it is likely that more UPCs and contract addenda
18 were signed in California. Thus, this factor disfavors transfer.
CONCLUSION

19

Months of jurisdictional and venue discovery have confirmed the propriety and convenience

20

21 of this venue. All of the factors either disfavor transfer or are neutral, and forcing the parties to litigate
22 in the Middle District of Florida would merely shift the inconvenience from some to others.
23
24
25

81

See Wyckoff Decl. 9.

82

See supra Factual Background, A substantial amount of the work was performed in or around this
26 District.
83
Id.
27
28
3:14-cv-00608-JCS
Opposition to Defendants Motion to Transfer Venue

23

Case3:14-cv-00608-JCS Document296 Filed12/15/14 Page28 of 28

1 Additionally, Defendants have not even met the threshold requirement of establishing personal
2 jurisdiction over all Defendants in the Middle District of Florida. Under such circumstances, Plaintiffs
3 respectfully request that the Court deny the motion to transfer venue.
4
5

DATED: December 15, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

6
7
8
9
10

/s/ Garrett R. Broshuis

PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW LLP
Bruce L. Simon
Daniel L. Warshaw
Bobby Pouya
Benjamin E. Shiftan

12

KOREIN TILLERY, LLC

Stephen M. Tillery
George A. Zelcs
Giuseppe S. Giardina
Garrett R. Broshuis

13

Plaintiffs Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel

11

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3:14-cv-00608-JCS
Opposition to Defendants Motion to Transfer Venue

24