Senne v. MLB - Motion To Transfer

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO TRANSFER ACTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF CASE NO. 3:14-cv-00608-JCS

PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
Howard L. Ganz
Elise M. Bloom (admitted pro hac vice)
Neil H. Abramson (admitted pro hac vice)
Adam M. Lupion (admitted pro hac vice)
11 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 969-3000
Facsimile: (212) 969-2900

PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
Laura Reathaford (SBN 254751)
lreathaford@proskauer.com
2049 Century Park East, 32nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206
Telephone: (310) 557-2900
Facsimile: (310) 557-2193

Attorneys for Defendants
*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AARON SENNE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF
BASEBALL, an unincorporated association
doing business as MAJOR LEAGUE
BASEBALL, et al.,

Defendants.
Case No. CV 14-00608 JCS

Hon. Joseph C. Spero

CLASS ACTION
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
TRANSFER ACTION TO THE MIDDLE
DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Date: September 5, 2014
Time: 9:30 am
Place: Courtroom G, 15th Floor

Complaint filed: February 7, 2014
First Am. Complaint filed: March 5, 2014
Second Am. Complaint filed April 21, 2014

*
With the exception of Baltimore Orioles, Inc., and Baltimore Orioles, L.P, Proskauer Rose is
counsel to all Defendants in this matter
Case3:14-cv-00608-JCS Document118 Filed05/23/14 Page1 of 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

i

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 5, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as
counsel may be heard Defendants: Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, an unincorporated
association doing business as Major League Baseball (MLB); Allan Huber Bud Selig; Kansas
City Royals Baseball Corp.; Miami Marlins, LP; San Francisco Baseball Associates LLC; Boston
Red Sox Baseball Club LP; Angels Baseball LP; Chicago White Sox Ltd.; St. Louis Cardinals, LLC;
Colorado Rockies Baseball Club, Ltd.; Baseball Club Of Seattle, LLP; The Cincinnati Reds LLC;
Houston Baseball Partners LLC; Athletics Investment Group, LLC; Rogers Blue Jays Baseball
Partnership; Cleveland Indians Baseball Co., LP; Cleveland Indians Baseball Co., Inc.; Padres LP;
San Diego Padres Baseball Club, LP; Minnesota Twins, LLC; Washington Nationals Baseball Club,
LLC; Detroit Tigers, Inc.; Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC; Los Angeles Dodgers Holding Co.; Sterling
Mets, L.P.; AZPB L.P.; Atlanta National Baseball Club, Inc.; The Phillies L.P.; Pittsburgh Baseball,
Inc.; Pittsburgh Baseball Pship; New York Yankees Pship; Tampa Bay Rays Baseball Ltd.;
Rangers Baseball Express, LLC; Rangers Baseball, LLC; Chicago Baseball Holdings, LLC;
Milwaukee Brewers Baseball Club, Inc.; Milwaukee Brewers Baseball Club, L.P. (collectively,
Defendants) will and hereby do move this Court for an order transferring this action to the Middle
District of Florida.
1

This motion is made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) on the grounds that transfer would be in
the interest of justice and would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses.
This motion is based on this Notice; the Memorandum of Points and Authorities; the
Declarations of Peter Woodfork, Bryan Minniti, Kevan Graves, Gregg Leonard, Daniel C. Lunetta,
Raquel Ferreira, Susan Ingersoll Papaneri, Charlie Wilson, John Vuch, Bradley Steil, and John
Ricco; the pleadings and records on file with this Court; all matters of which the Court must or may

1
Pittsburgh Associates, LP, is incorrectly identified in the Second Amended Complaint as
Pittsburgh Baseball, Inc. and Pittsburgh Baseball Partnership; The Phillies is incorrectly identified as
The Phillies L.P.; The Baseball Club Of Seattle, LLLP is incorrectly identified as Baseball Club Of
Seattle, LLP; Los Angeles Dodgers LLC is incorrectly identified as Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC; Los
Angeles Dodgers Holding Company LLC is incorrectly identified as Los Angeles Dodgers Holding
Co.; and Chicago Cubs Baseball Club, LLC is incorrectly identified as Chicago Baseball Holdings,
LLC.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ii

take judicial notice; and such evidence and argument as may be presented at or before the hearing on
this matter.

Dated: May 23, 2014 PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
ELISE M. BLOOM
HOWARD L. GANZ
NEIL H. ABRAMSON
ADAM M. LUPION
LAURA REATHAFORD

By:

/s/ Elise M. Bloom
Elise M. Bloom


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .............................................................................................................iv

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ...................................................................1

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .........................................................1

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS ..........................................................................................................2

III. LEGAL ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................4

TRANSFERRING THIS ACTION TO THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WILL SERVE
THE CONVENIENCE OF THE PARTIES AND WITNESSES AND PROMOTE THE
INTERESTS OF JUSTICE ................................................................................................................4

A. Plaintiffs Claims Might Have Been Brought In The Middle District of Florida ...........5

B. The Convenience Of The Witnesses And the Interest of Justice Strongly Favor
Transfer to the Middle District of Florida .......................................................................6

1. The Middle District of Florida Is More Convenient For The Parties and
Witnesses Who Will Also Be The Most Important Sources of Proof In
This Case ................................................................................................................7

2. The Middle District of Florida is Better Able To Subject Relevant Witnesses
to Compulsory Process ..........................................................................................9

3. The Parties Have Greater Contacts With the Middle District of Florida than
With the Northern District of California ................................................................11

4. Many More Agreements Were Negotiated and Executed in Florida than in
California ...............................................................................................................11

5. Litigating Plaintiffs Claims in This Court Would be Much More Costly Than
Doing So in the Middle District of Florida ............................................................12

6. Relative Congestion of the Courts .........................................................................12

7. Both Courts are Equally Capable of Adjudicating Claims Under the Governing
Law ........................................................................................................................13

8. The Plaintiffs Choice of Forum is Entitled to Very Little Weight .......................13

9. The Middle District of Florida and This District Have Similar Interests In the
Controversy ............................................................................................................14

IV. CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................................15

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CASES
A.J. Indus., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct.,
503 F.2d 384 (9th Cir. 1974) .....................................................................................................7
Adobe Sys. Inc. v. Trinity Software Distribution, Inc.,
No. C12-1614 SI, 2012 WL 3763643 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2012) .......................................9, 10
Animal Legal Defense Fund v. U.S. Dept of Agric.,
No. CV 12-4407-SC, 2013 WL 120185 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2013) .................................6, 12, 14
Associated Mills, Inc. v. Rush-Hampton Indus. Inc.,
588 F. Supp. 1164 (N.D. Ill. 1984) ..........................................................................................10
Burris v. Bangert Computer Sys. Inc.,
No. 209 CV 201-FTM-29 DNF, 2009 WL 3256477 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 7, 2009) .........................6
Clark v. Crews,
No. 8:13-CV-2642-T-30 MAP, 2014 WL 667825 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 20, 2014) ........................10
Clark v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.,
No. C 10-03625 SI, 2010 WL 5173872 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2010) ..........................................7
Davis v. Soc. Serv. Coordinators,
No. 1:10-CV-02372-LJO, 2013 WL 4483067 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2013) ........................12, 14
Dean v. N. Palm Pain Mgmt., Inc.,
No. 11-80351-CIV, 2011 WL 4104909 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 15, 2011) ...........................................5
DirecTV, LLC v. Arndt,
546 F. Appx 836 (11th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................................5
Fisher v. Las Vegas Hilton Corp.,
47 F. Appx 824 (9th Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................9
Florens Container v. Cho Yang Ship,
245 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (N.D. Cal. 2002) .....................................................................................7
Friends of Scotland, Inc. v. Carroll,
No. C12-01255 WHA, 2013 WL 1192956 (N.D. Cal. March 22, 2013) ................................13
Gulf Oil Co. v. Gilbert,
330 U.S. 501 (1947) .................................................................................................................10
Hamel-Schwulst v. Negrotto,
No. 308 CV 529 MCR/EMT, 2010 WL 548318 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2010) ............................11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

v

Hodgdon v. Needham-Skyles Oil Co.,
556 F. Supp. 75 (D.D.C. 1982) ................................................................................................12
Hoffman v. Blaski,
363 U.S. 335 (1960) ...................................................................................................................5
Holliday v. Lifestyle Lift, Inc.,
No. C 09-4995 RS, 2010 WL 3910143 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2010) ............................................13
Hunter v. Mozil,
No. C 08-4213 PJH, 2008 WL 5130453 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2008) .........................................11
In re Funeral Consumers Antitrust Litig.,
2005 WL 2334362 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2005) ..........................................................................8
In re W. States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litig.,
715 F. 3d 716 (9th Cir. 2013) ....................................................................................................6
Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc.,
211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2000) .........................................................................................6, 11, 13
Lou v. Belzberg,
834 F.2d 730 (9th Cir. 1987) ...............................................................................................9, 13
Machado v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.,
No. 13-CV-04501-JCS, 2014 WL 631038 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2014) ..............................4, 6, 7
Madani v. Shell Oil Co.,
No. C 07-04296 MJJ, 2008 WL 268986 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2008) ........................................14
Martin-Trigona v. Meister,
668 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1987) ..................................................................................................12
McKenzie v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc.,
No. C-11-04965 JCS, 2012 WL 5372120 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2012) ..................................4, 13
Metz v. United States Life Insurance Co.,
674 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (C.D. Cal. 2009) .....................................................................................9
Miller v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co.,
No. C12-4936 LB, 2013 WL 6774072 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2013) ..........................................10
New England Machinery, Inc. v. Conagra Pet Prods. Co.,
827 F. Supp. 732 (M.D. Fla. 1993) ..........................................................................................11
Newman v. Sherman,
No. C05-2989 SBA, 2005 WL 2739299 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2005) ..........................................8
Pierre v. Venus Satellite, Inc.,
No. 3:12-CV-343-J-34 JBT, 2014 WL 103212 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 9, 2014) ..................................5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

vi

Roberts v. C.R. England, Inc.,
827 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ...................................................................................13
Saleh v. Titan Corp.,
361 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (S.D. Cal. 2005) ......................................................................................7
Skyriver Tech. Solutions, LLC v. OCLC Online Computer Library Ctr.,
No. C 10-03305 JSW, 2010 WL 4366127 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2010) .....................................13
Van Dusen v. Barrack,
376 U.S. 612 (1964) ...............................................................................................................1, 4
Vu v. Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc.,
602 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (N.D. Cal. 2009) ...............................................................................6, 12
Williams v. Bowman,
157 F. Supp. 2d 1103 (N.D. Cal.2001) ......................................................................................6
Williams v. WinCo Foods, LLC,
No. 2:12-CV-02690-KJM, 2013 WL 211246 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2013) ...........................13, 14
Williamson v. Am. Mastiff Breeders Council,
No. 308-CV-336-ECR-VPC, 2009 WL 634231 (D. Nev. Mar. 6, 2009) ..................................8
STATUTES AND OTHER AUTHORITIES
28 U.S.C. 1331 ..............................................................................................................................5
28 U.S.C. 1337 ..............................................................................................................................5
28 U.S.C. 1367 ..............................................................................................................................5
28 U.S.C. 1404(a) .......................................................................................................1, 4, 5, 6, 10
Fla. Stat. 48.193 ............................................................................................................................5
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2)....................................................................................................................2
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1) ..............................................................................................................9, 10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
This lawsuit is brought as various putative subclass actions and as a putative nationwide Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action purporting to cover virtually all Minor League
professional baseball players. This case should be transferred to the Middle District of Florida
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a).
Section 1404(a) provides that a district court may, in its discretion, transfer any civil action to
any other district where the action might have been brought for the convenience of the parties and
witnesses, and in the interest of justice. The purpose of this provision is to prevent the waste of
time, energy and money and to protect litigants, witnesses, and the public against unnecessary
inconvenience and expense. Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964). These
considerations support the transfer of this case to the Middle District of Florida.
Plaintiffs claim to have been unlawfully denied minimum wage and overtime pay for time
spent playing Minor League baseball during the championship season (commonly referred to as
the regular season), spring training, and in instructional leagues, as well as for alleged off-season
training activities.
2
The Middle District of Florida is a considerably more appropriate venue to
adjudicate Plaintiffs purported claims because that is the situs of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs
claims and where the largest concentration of parties and witnesses can be found. More specifically,
of the 30 Major League Baseball Club Defendants, 15 Clubs maintain spring training sites in
Florida, including 12 in the Middle District of Florida alone. Indeed, the headquarters for Minor
League Baseball (MiLB) is located in St. Petersburg, Florida. There is not a single spring training
facility in the entire state of California, much less in this District. Similarly, there are 23 Minor
League clubs located in the Middle District of Florida the largest number of clubs in any district in
the United States. By sharp contrast, there is only one Minor League club located in this District.
Stated simply, only a small fraction of the conduct giving rise to Plaintiffs claims occurred in the
Northern District of California; Plaintiffs, the members of the putative class (and subclasses) and

2
All references to the Complaint are to the Second Amended Complaint filed on or about
April 21, 2014, and are cited herein as Compl., ___.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

their managers, coaches and trainers have at best a fleeting nexus to this District. Moreover, in
addition to the Major League Clubs (which are located throughout the United States), Plaintiffs also
sued the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, which maintains its principal place of business in
New York, as well as Commissioner Allan H. Bud Selig, a resident of Wisconsin (collectively,
MLB). There can be no question that it is more appropriate for these Defendants to litigate in
Florida than across the country in California.
In these circumstances, the Middle District of Florida provides greater access to the key
sources of proof, has greater ability to compel the attendance of relevant non-party witnesses, would
greatly reduce the costs of litigation, and has appreciably greater contacts relating to Plaintiffs
allegations and Defendants defenses. Accordingly, Defendants Motion to Transfer Venue should
be granted and the case should be transferred to the Middle District of Florida.
3

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
On February 7, 2014, plaintiffs Aaron Senne, Michael Liberto, and Oliver Odle filed a
complaint against certain of the Defendants
4
alleging: (i) violations of the FLSA related to minimum
wage, overtime, and recordkeeping; and (ii) violations of state wage and hour laws and/or claims for
quantum meruit under Florida, California, Arizona, North Carolina and New York law.
On March 5, 2014 Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add 18 new plaintiffs, 14 new MLB
Club defendants, and two new claims (one each under Florida and California law). Plaintiffs
amended their complaint for a second time on April 21, 2014, naming 12 additional Plaintiffs and
the remaining 13 MLB Clubs as Defendants. Plaintiffs seek minimum wage and overtime pay for
time spent playing baseball during spring training, extended spring training, the championship (or

3
Simultaneous with the filing of this Motion to Transfer, Defendants Atlanta National
Baseball Club, Inc., Boston Red Sox Baseball Club L.P., Chicago White Sox, Ltd., Cleveland
Indians Baseball Co., L.P., Detroit Tigers, Inc., New York Yankees, Pship, the Phillies L.P.,
Pittsburgh Baseball, Inc., Pittsburgh Baseball PShip, Tampa Bay Rays Baseball, Ltd., and
Washington Nationals Baseball Club, LLC moved to dismiss the Complaint for lack of personal
jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). In the event that the motion to dismiss is denied,
these Defendants move in the alternative to transfer venue and respectfully join in the instant motion.
4
The initially named defendants were: the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball doing
business as Major League Baseball; Allan Huber Bud Selig; Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp.;
Miami Marlins, L.P.; and San Francisco Baseball Associates LLC.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

regular) season, and in instructional leagues, as well as in connection with alleged off-season
training activities. (Compl., 166-72, 467-585)
There are a total of 30 Major League Baseball Clubs. (Compl., 51) Each Club is affiliated
with several Minor League teams, organized into classes roughly reflecting the skill level of the
players. (Compl., 152) Some Minor League teams are directly owned by the MLB Club. Others
are independently owned and operated pursuant to Player Development Contracts (PDCs),
agreements by which a Minor League club agrees to affiliate itself with an MLB Club for a certain
time period. (Compl., 154)
Approximately 188 MiLB teams operate throughout the United States. (Woodfork Decl.
4, Ex. A) There are a total of 30 MiLB teams based in Florida, including 23 in the Middle District of
Florida alone the highest concentration of Minor League teams in any district in the United States.
5

Id. On the other hand, there are only 12 MiLB teams located in California. Id. Only one team is
located in this District.
6
Id. Moreover, nearly two-thirds of all MiLB teams are located in the
eastern half of the country (i.e., east of the Mississippi River), and roughly 75 percent of all MiLB
teams are located within a 1000 mile radius of the Middle District of Florida. Id. By sharp contrast,
only 47 teams (or 25%) are located within a 1000 mile radius of this District. Id.
Of the 30 MLB Clubs, 15 have spring training sites in in Florida 12 of which are located in
the Middle District of Florida. (Compl. 17, n.12; Woodfork Decl. 2) The remaining 15 Clubs
have spring training sites in Arizona. (Compl. 17, n.12; Woodfork Decl. 3) Not a single Club
has a spring training facility in California. (Woodfork Decl. 3) For the most part, Minor League
players sign their employment contracts at the Clubs spring training facility either in Florida or in
Arizona. (See, e.g., Graves Decl. 2; Lunetta Decl. 2-3; Papaneri Decl. 2-3; Wilson Decl.

5
These teams are: the Bradenton Marauders, Brevard County Manatees, Charlotte Stone
Crabs, Clearwater Threshers, Daytona Cubs, Dunedin Blue Jays, Fort Myers Miracle, Jacksonville
Suns, Lakeland Flying Tigers, Tampa Yankees, Gulf Coast Astros, Gulf Coast Blue Jays, Gulf Coast
Braves, Gulf Coast Nationals, Gulf Coast Orioles, Gulf Coast Phillies, Gulf Coast Pirates, Gulf
Coast Rays, Gulf Coast Red Sox, Gulf Coast Tigers, Gulf Coast Twins, Gulf Coast Yankees 1, and,
Gulf Coast Yankees 2. See Woodfork Decl. 4, Ex. A.
6
This team is the San Jose Giants. See Woodfork Decl. 4, Ex. A.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4

2-3; Vuch Decl. 2-3; Steil Decl. 2-3; Ferreira Decl. 2-3; Ricco Decl. 2-3; Minniti Decl. 2-
3; Leonard Decl. 2)
Minor League players spend between one to four months per year at their Clubs spring
training complex in Florida or Arizona. (Compl. 10, n.6, 167-68) Spring training occurs for
approximately one month in March and, as the Complaint alleges, between 30-50 Minor League
players per Club participate in extended spring training through the middle of June. (Compl. 168)
In addition, all 15 MLB Clubs who hold spring training in Florida have at least one Minor League
affiliate that plays in Florida as well (from April to August). (Compl. 166; Woodfork Decl. 2,
Ex. A) After the Championship season is over, according to the Complaint, between 30-45 Minor
League players return to their teams spring training facility (either in Florida or Arizona) to
participate in an instructional league in September. (Compl. 10, n.6, 169)
In addition, MiLBs headquarters are located in St. Petersburg, Florida, in Pinellas County,
also in the Middle District of Florida. (Woodfork Decl. 5) The Major League Rules, including
but not limited to the Minor League UPC and rules concerning the number and scheduling of Minor
League games, are binding on MiLB. See Exhibit A, attached to the Second Amended Complaint, at
172.

III. LEGAL ARGUMENT

TRANSFERRING THIS ACTION TO THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WILL
SERVE THE CONVENIENCE OF THE PARTIES AND WITNESSES AND PROMOTE
THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE

Section 1404(a) allows for discretionary transfer and provides that [f]or the convenience of
[the] parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to
any other district or division where [the action] might have been brought. The purpose of this
section is to prevent the waste of time, energy and money and to protect litigants, witnesses, and
the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense. Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612,
616 (1964). See also McKenzie v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., No. C-11-04965 JCS, 2012 WL
5372120 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2012), at *24 (Spero J.); Machado v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 13-CV-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5

04501-JCS, 2014 WL 631038, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2014) (Spero J.) (citing 28 U.S.C.
1404(a)).
A. Plaintiffs Claims Might Have Been Brought In The Middle District of Florida.
An action might have been brought in a transferee court if that court would have personal
and subject matter jurisdiction over the defendants and where venue is proper. Hoffman v. Blaski,
363 U.S. 335, 343-44 (1960). The Middle District of Florida has subject matter jurisdiction over
Plaintiffs FLSA claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 28 U.S.C. 1337. See DirecTV, LLC v.
Arndt, 546 F. Appx 836 (11th Cir. 2013) (federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over FLSA
claims); Pierre v. Venus Satellite, Inc., No. 3:12-CV-343-J-34 JBT, 2014 WL 103212, at *4 (M.D.
Fla. Jan. 9, 2014) (same) and over Plaintiffs state law claims pursuant to the supplemental
jurisdiction doctrine codified in 28 U.S.C. 1367. Dean v. N. Palm Pain Mgmt., Inc., No. 11-
80351-CIV, 2011 WL 4104909, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 15, 2011) (exercising supplemental
jurisdiction over state law wage claim brought along with FLSA claim).
In addition, all Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in the Middle District of
Florida pursuant to Floridas long-arm statute, Fla. Stat. 48.193 which provides, in pertinent part:

(1) Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, who
personally or through an agent does any of the acts enumerated in this subsection
thereby submits himself or herself and, if he or she is a natural person, his or her
personal representative to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state for any cause
of action arising from the doing of any of the following acts:
(a) Operating, conducting, engaging in, or carrying on a business or
business venture in this state or having an office or agency in this state.

(c) Owning, using, possessing, or holding a mortgage or other lien on
any real property within this state.

(g) Breaching a contract in this state by failing to perform acts required
by the contract to be performed in this state.

(2) A defendant who is engaged in substantial and not isolated activity
within this state, whether such activity is wholly interstate, intrastate, or
otherwise, is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state, whether or not
the claim arises from that activity.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6

See Macado, 2014 WL 631038, at *3; In re W. States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.
3d 716 (9th Cir. 2013) (Personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant is proper if permitted by
a states long-arm statute).
Here, all Defendants are subject to Floridas long-arm jurisdiction. Indeed, there can be no
dispute as to the existence of personal jurisdiction in Florida over those MLB Clubs that (i) conduct
spring training in Florida; and (ii) have Minor League affiliates based in Florida or that play games
in Florida. See Burris v. Bangert Computer Sys. Inc., No. 209 CV 201-FTM-29 DNF, 2009 WL
3256477 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 7, 2009) (courts have personal jurisdiction over defendant for FLSA claims
for work performed in Florida even if the defendant is not headquartered in Florida and has no
offices there). In any event, it is certainly reasonable for all MLB Clubs to be called into court in
Florida the State where MiLB is headquartered and maintains its principal place of business for
this case that involves the compensation of Minor League Players.
Finally, venue is proper in the Middle District of Florida because a substantial part of the
events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred there.

B. The Convenience Of The Witnesses And the Interest of Justice Strongly Favor
Transfer to the Middle District of Florida.
Analysis of the factors considered by the courts weighs decidedly in favor of transferring this
case under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) to the Middle District of Florida. Those factors are: (1)
convenience of the parties and witnesses; (2) the ease of access to sources of proof; (3) the
availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of witnesses; (4) the differences in the costs
of litigation in the two forums; (5) the contacts relating to the plaintiffs claims in the chosen forum;
(6) the respective parties contacts with the forum; (7) the location where the relevant agreements
were negotiated and executed and; (8) the relative congestion of the courts. Machado, 2014 WL
631038, at *4; Williams v. Bowman, 157 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 1106 (N.D. Cal.2001); Vu v. Ortho-
McNeil Pharm., Inc., 602 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (N.D. Cal. 2009); Animal Legal Defense Fund v. U.S.
Dept of Agric., No. CV 12-4407-SC, 2013 WL 120185, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2013); Jones v.
GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000). In this case, other factors the courts
typically examine in determining whether to transfer the courts familiarity with the governing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

7

law, the plaintiffs choice of forum and the interest of the transferee district in the controversy are
neutral or inapplicable.

1. The Middle District of Florida Is More Convenient For The Parties and
Witnesses Who Will Also Be The Most Important Sources of Proof In This
Case
The convenience of the witnesses is often the most important factor considered by the court
when deciding a motion to transfer for convenience. A.J. Indus., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 503 F.2d 384
(9th Cir. 1974). See also Machado, 2014 WL 631038, at *4; Saleh v. Titan Corp., 361 F. Supp. 2d
1152, 1155-56 (S.D. Cal. 2005); Clark v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., No. C 10-03625 SI, 2010 WL
5173872 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2010). In balancing the convenience of the witnesses, courts must
consider not only the number of witnesses but also the nature and quality of their testimony.
Machado, 2014 WL 631038, at *4. [C]ourts look to who the witnesses are, where they are located,
what their testimony will be, and why such testimony is relevant. Florens Container v. Cho Yang
Ship, 245 F. Supp. 2d 1086, 1092-93 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (citing A.J. Indus., Inc., 503 F.2d at 389).
Here, important sources of proof will be the trial testimony of the witnesses including but
not limited to the opt-in plaintiffs, Minor League players who elect not to opt-in, their managers and
coaches, as well as Club employees with knowledge of Minor League operations. The Middle
District of Florida will be far more convenient and accessible to most of these party and non-party
witnesses who will likely be called to testify in this case.
In particular, substantially more witnesses with knowledge and information pertaining to
Plaintiffs claims e.g., Minor League players, coaches, managers and trainers work or play in the
Middle District of Florida, or within a much more reasonable travelling distance to the Middle
District of Florida, than is the case with respect to this District. Indeed, at least half of all current
Minor League players and other Minor League personnel will be in Florida for at least one month
during spring training. In addition, there are a significantly greater number of MiLB teams based in
Florida throughout the entire season (30 in Florida compared to 12 in California), including 23 in the
Middle District of Florida compared to only one team in this District. In this respect, only an
infinitesimal fraction of players will ever be in the Northern District of California during the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

8

pendency of this case because: (a) spring training, extended spring training, and instructional league
do not occur in this state, much less in this District; and (b) the overwhelming majority of the
putative class will not play a single game in this District because the only players who will have a
presence in this District during the season are the San Jose Giants and (but only occasionally) their
opponents.
The demonstrable inconvenience of trying this case in California is further illustrated by the
fact that only 25% of current Minor League players play for teams located within 1000 miles of this
District, while 75% of current Minor League players play for teams that are located within 1000
miles of the Middle District of Florida. Because it would be impracticable to limit the taking of
discovery and the trying of this case to the offseason, substantially more players and team personnel
will be inconvenienced should they be forced to appear for depositions and/or testify at trial in this
District. See, e.g., Williamson v. Am. Mastiff Breeders Council, No. 308-CV-336-ECR-VPC, 2009
WL 634231, at *8 (D. Nev. Mar. 6, 2009) (finding ease of access to proof since there were more
parties located in the eastern part of the country than in the western part); In re Funeral Consumers
Antitrust Litig., 2005 WL 2334362, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2005) (finding that the
overwhelming majority of individuals with discoverable information were in Texas or east of the
Mississippi River, including present and former employees of defendants; warranting transfer from
the Northern District of California to the Southern District of Texas).
In addition, Plaintiffs have sued the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, which
maintains its principal place of business in New York, as well as Commissioner Allan H. Bud
Selig, a resident of Wisconsin. Since Florida is far closer to New York (and, in the event Mr. Seligs
testimony is required, closer to Wisconsin) than is the instant forum, the Middle District of Florida is
a more convenient forum for these defendants to defend the claims raised in this case. Ironically,
Plaintiffs allege that venue is proper in this District because it is believed that one of MLBs
officers resides within this District. (Compl., 120) (emphasis added). However, there can be no
dispute that a much greater number of MLBs officers reside in or in close proximity to New York,
where MLB maintains its principal place of business. See, e.g., Newman v. Sherman, No. C05-2989
SBA, 2005 WL 2739299, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2005) (where witnesses were located on the east
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

9

coast, particularly New York and New Jersey, Florida provided a more convenient forum for
witnesses and greater ease of access to evidence than the Northern District of California).
Courts have long recognized the importance of avoiding burden as a compelling ground for
transfer. In Metz v. United States Life Insurance Co., 674 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (C.D. Cal. 2009)), for
example, a California court transferred a putative class action after finding that the Southern District
of New York was more convenient for the parties and the majority of the relevant witnesses in the
case. Id. at 1147-48. See also Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987) (upholding
California district courts decision to grant transfer to New York district court due in part to the fact
that the majority of the witnesses live and work in the New York area.); Fisher v. Las Vegas
Hilton Corp., 47 F. Appx 824, 826-27 (9th Cir. 2002) (upholding transfer where district court
determined that transferee venue was more convenient for relevant witnesses); Adobe Sys. Inc. v.
Trinity Software Distribution, Inc., No. C12-1614 SI, 2012 WL 3763643, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29,
2012) (transferring case to Florida and finding that convenience of the witnesses weigh[ed] heavily
[in] favor of transfer because the center of gravity of witnesses was located near the defendants
business there).
The same considerations are present here. Because the Defendants, their employees and the
putative class members are spread across the country, some inconvenience to some witnesses is
unavoidable. However, the inconvenience will be substantially mitigated if the case is transferred to
Florida. Most of the witnesses with knowledge relating to the players employment and hours
reside, play and/or work in Florida or within a much more reasonable traveling distance from
Florida. As such, the lives of these witnesses, as well as Defendants business operations, will be
significantly disrupted if they are required to travel across the country to San Francisco to participate
in the litigation of this case.

2. The Middle District of Florida is Better Able To Subject Relevant
Witnesses to Compulsory Process
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(1), which was recently amended effective December
2013, mandates that a subpoena may command a witness to appear within either (a) one hundred
miles of the place where he resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person or (b) if
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

10

the witness is also a party or the witness is being subpoenaed for trial, anywhere in a state where he
resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person.
Here, there are certain to be substantially more witnesses (i.e., players, managers, coaches,
trainers) who can be compelled to testify in person in the state of Florida in accordance with Fed. R.
Civ. P. 45(c)(1) because employees of half of the Clubs play in spring training facilities in the state
of Florida. No Club holds spring training in California. In addition, 30 MiLB teams are based in
Florida, compared to 12 in California. Indeed, in light of the fact that certain players (as well as
managers, coaches and trainers) who attend spring training in Arizona are assigned to Minor League
affiliates that play regular season games in Florida, a majority of the putative class will have had or
will have a presence in the state of Florida during the year.
Thus, the Middle District of Florida is significantly better able to compel the testimony of the
witnesses and potential parties in this matter. Miller v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., No. C12-4936
LB, 2013 WL 6774072, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2013); see also Clark v. Crews, No. 8:13-CV-
2642-T-30 MAP, 2014 WL 667825, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 20, 2014) (granting motion to transfer in
part because witnesses cannot be subpoenaed to testify at the trial in this action because they live
more than 100 miles from this Court.)
Certainly to fix the place of trial at a point where litigants cannot compel personal
attendance and may be forced to try their cases on deposition[s], is to create a condition not
satisfactory to court, jury or most litigants. Gulf Oil Co. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947).
7

Indeed, where, as is the case here, substantially more witnesses could be compelled to appear in the
Middle District of Florida than in the Northern District of California, this Court held that transfer to
the Middle District of Florida was appropriate. Adobe Sys. Inc., 2012 WL 3763643, at *10 (granting
motion to transfer venue where defendants identified witnesses located in Florida who could not be
compelled to testify in the Northern District of California.)

7
Although Gulf Oil decided the issue under the former forum non conveniens doctrine, courts
have adopted its analysis relating to compulsory process since the modification of 1404(a). See,
e.g., Associated Mills, Inc. v. Rush-Hampton Indus. Inc., 588 F. Supp. 1164, 1167 (N.D. Ill. 1984)
(ordering transfer from Illinois to Florida based, in part, on lack of compulsory process over
witnesses).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

11

3. The Parties Have Greater Contacts With the Middle District of
Florida than With the Northern District of California
This factor also strongly favors transfer. As discussed above, many more witnesses have
contacts with the Middle District of Florida than with this District because only one Minor League
team is located in the Northern District of California, while 23 Minor League teams are located
within the Middle District of Florida. Similarly, significantly more of the putative plaintiffs
regularly play in the Middle District of Florida for months at a time during spring training, extended
spring training, instructional league, and/or the Championship season.
Additionally, the MLB Clubs have greater contact with the Middle District of Florida
compared to this District. Although MLB Clubs are spread across the country, they have
significantly greater operations in Florida by virtue of the facts that: (i) half of the Club Defendants
maintain spring training sites in that State (including 12 spring training sites in the Middle District of
Florida); and (ii) they depend on MiLB, which is headquartered in the Middle District of Florida, to
administer Minor League operations.

4. Many More Agreements Were Negotiated and Executed in Florida
than in California
Another relevant factor for courts to consider is the location where the relevant agreements
were negotiated and executed. Jones, supra, 211 F.3d at 498. Here, it is the Clubs usual practice
to have Minor League players sign their Uniform Player Contracts on site at spring training facility.
And the spring training facilities are located in Florida or Arizona but not in California. To be
sure, Florida has a compelling interest to adjudicate claims involving contracts made within its
borders. New England Machinery, Inc. v. Conagra Pet Prods. Co., 827 F. Supp. 732, 735 (M.D. Fla.
1993) (transferring action to Virginia because negotiations forming the contract between the parties
occurred in Virginia, holding [m]atters concerning the execution, interpretation, and the validity of
a contract are determined by the place where the contract was made.); see also Hunter v. Mozil, No.
C 08-4213 PJH, 2008 WL 5130453, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2008) (transferring action to Texas, in
part, because the relevant agreement was negotiated there) (cited with approval by Hamel-Schwulst
v. Negrotto, No. 308 CV 529 MCR/EMT, 2010 WL 548318, at *7 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2010)).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

12

5. Litigating Plaintiffs Claims in This Court Would be Much More
Costly Than Doing So in the Middle District of Florida
Added expense is another factor relevant to this Courts decision to transfer. Martin-Trigona
v. Meister, 668 F. Supp. 1, 3 (D.D.C. 1987); Hodgdon v. Needham-Skyles Oil Co., 556 F. Supp. 75,
79 (D.D.C. 1982). Given that more than 75% of the putative collective/class members and witnesses
are regularly located within 1000 miles of the Middle District of Florida and at least half of the
players will, at some point, actually be in the Middle District of Florida for spring training and
during the season, it logically follows that it would be significantly less expensive to litigate this
case in a venue located closer to the evidence and these witnesses. Conversely, the only players who
predictably will be located in the Northern District are the San Jose Giants and their opponents.
Thus, litigating this case in this District would require key witnesses to travel a much greater
distance than they would have to travel if this case was venued in Florida. Where, as here, this
expense is avoidable, a transfer of venue is appropriate. Martin-Trigona v. Meister, 668 F. Supp. at
3 (noting that the added expense is a compelling factor weighing in favor of transfer).
6. Relative Congestion of the Courts
Courts that consider ancillary factors occasionally consider the relative congestion of each
proposed forum because a congested court would probably be slower to adjudicate the matter than
a less busy court. Animal Legal Defense Fund, 2013 WL 120185, at *5; Vu, 602 F. Supp. 2d at
1156.
As this Court is well aware, the Northern District of California has an extremely busy docket,
including many of the nations most complex and time-consuming cases. According to the latest
statistics, the median time from filing of a civil case until trial in this District is 27.4 months.
Meanwhile, in the Middle District of Florida, the median time to trial is 19.8 months.
8
Therefore,
this factor weighs in favor of transfer. See Davis v. Soc. Serv. Coordinators, No. 1:10-CV-02372-
LJO, 2013 WL 4483067, at *10 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2013) (granting motion to transfer and noting

8
Comparative data for all U.S. Courts of Appeal and District Courts may be found at
http://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics/FederalCourtManagementStatistics.aspx. The statistics cited here
are as of Sept. 30, 2013.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

13

that less congested dockets in Florida courts favor the convenience of the parties and reduce the
costs of litigation).
7. Both Courts are Equally Capable of Adjudicating Claims Under
the Governing Law
Courts may also consider whether the transferee court is more familiar with the law
governing the case. Jones, supra, 211 F.3d at 498. Plaintiffs primary claim is based on the FLSA,
a federal law with which all federal judges are presumed to be equally familiar. See Friends of
Scotland, Inc. v. Carroll, No. C12-01255 WHA, 2013 WL 1192956, at *2 (N.D. Cal. March 22,
2013) (where the action involves a federal question neither forum is more familiar than the other
with the governing law.); Skyriver Tech. Solutions, LLC v. OCLC Online Computer Library Ctr.,
No. C 10-03305 JSW, 2010 WL 4366127, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2010) (all federal courts are
capable of applying federal law.)
Plaintiffs have also brought ancillary state law claims under the laws of Florida, Arizona,
North Carolina, California and New York. This Courts greater familiarity with California law is
balanced out by the Florida courts greater familiarity with Florida law. See, e.g., Roberts v. C.R.
England, Inc., 827 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1087 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (plaintiffs claims arose under Utah,
Indiana, California, and federal law, so no forum is positioned to be the most familiar with the law
governing the case.) And, with respect to the California claims specifically, at least one court has
held that out-of-state judges are fully capable of adjudicating claims that arise under California
law. Skyriver Techs., supra, 2010 WL 4366127, at *5; see also Holliday v. Lifestyle Lift, Inc., No. C
09-4995 RS, 2010 WL 3910143, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2010). In addition, both courts are equally
equipped to adjudicate any out-of-state claims (i.e., those arising under the laws of New York,
Arizona, and North Carolina.) Accordingly, this factor does not weigh against transfer.
8. The Plaintiffs Choice of Forum is Entitled to Very Little Weight
In class or collective actions, a named plaintiffs choice of forum is given only minimal
consideration. McKenzie v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., 2012 WL 5372120, at *25 (Spero J.);
Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987) (Although great weight is generally accorded
plaintiffs choice of forum ... when an individual ... represents a class, the named plaintiffs choice of
forum is given less weight.); Williams v. WinCo Foods, LLC, No. 2:12-CV-02690-KJM, 2013 WL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

14

211246, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2013). Moreover, the residence of any one plaintiff is less
significant wh[en] there are fifty to one-hundred potential class plaintiffs, particularly where, as here,
the other named plaintiff resides elsewhere. Williams, supra, 2013 WL 211246, at *3; citing
Madani v. Shell Oil Co., No. C 07-04296 MJJ, 2008 WL 268986, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2008)
(affording little deference to plaintiffs chosen forum because there were thousands of potential class
members throughout the country, and several other named plaintiffs resided in other states).
Notably, of the three plaintiffs who originally commenced this action in this District Aaron
Senne, Michael Liberto, and Oliver Odle none live in California, much less the Northern District.
(Compl., 19-21) Of the named plaintiffs, only Kyle Woodruff and Jake Kahaulelio allege that
they reside within this District. (Compl., 25, 32) At least one plaintiff, Ryan Kiel, resides in the
Middle District of Florida. (Compl., 26) The remaining named plaintiffs are spread out across the
country. The putative class members are also located throughout the country, but substantially
many more of them play on MiLB teams which are located or play games in the Middle District of
Florida than in this District. Here, since the majority of potential class members are employed and
reside outside of California, this factor weighs in favor of transfer.

9. The Middle District of Florida and This District Have Similar
Interests In the Controversy
Some courts consider whether the case presents localized controversies when ruling on
motions to transfer. See, e.g., Animal Legal Defense Fund, 2013 WL 120185, at *5. Such courts
have determined that this factor is neutral where, as here, the alleged actions occurred on a
nationwide scale. Id. (the Northern District of California has little interest because the core facts of
this case arose elsewhere, and only part of the alleged harm occurred in this district.). Although
California courts clearly have an interest in enforcing this states employment laws, the same is true
of courts in Florida (or any other state in the country). See Davis, 2013 WL 4483067, at *10
(While California has an interest in protecting its residents from wrongful employment practices, an
equally persuasive argument exists that Florida courts have an interest in preventing wrongful
employment practices by companies that conduct business in Florida.)
9
Since this case presents

9
This Court and the court in the Middle District of Florida are equally equipped to adjudicate
the claims arising under the laws of Arizona, New York, and North Carolina.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

15

national issues, in addition to several localized controversies that weigh in favor of transfer (e.g.,
the facts that that the alleged claims predominantly arose in Florida and that a substantial number of
players sign their employment contracts there at spring training) this factor further supports transfer
of the case to the Middle District of Florida.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request the Court grant this motion and
transfer the action to the Middle District of Florida.

Dated: May 23, 2014 PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
ELISE M. BLOOM (admitted pro hac vice)
HOWARD L. GANZ
NEIL H. ABRAMSON (admitted pro hac vice)
ADAM M. LUPION (admitted pro hac vice)
LAURA REATHAFORD

By:
/s/ Elise M. Bloom
Elise M. Bloom


Senne v. MLB - Motion To Transfer

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Senne v. MLB - Motion To Transfer

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

1

Вам также может понравиться