Court filing

DECLARATION OF KATHLEEN A. HERKENHOFF re: pldg. ( 33 in MDL No. 2954) Filed by… — Agent Fee Litigation (Dkt. 35)

Summary

A declaration of Kathleen A. Herkenhoff, filed June 25, 2020 as Document 35 in In re: Wells Fargo Paycheck Protection Program Litigation, MDL No. 2954, before the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. The declarant states that she is counsel for the plaintiff in Karen's Custom Grooming LLC v. Wells Fargo & Company, Case No. 3:20-cv-00956-LAB-BGS, and submits the declaration supporting that plaintiff's opposition to a motion by DNM Contracting, Inc. to transfer actions to the Southern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. §1407. She describes conferring with defense counsel between approximately June 11, 2020 and June 22, 2020 without obtaining the requested information. Exhibits 1 and 2 are joint motions to extend the defendants' time to respond; Exhibits 3 and 4 are venue-transfer papers from Maldonado v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. The filing runs 49 pages.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Case MDL No. 2954 Document 35 Filed 06/25/20 Page 1 of 49

BEFORE THE
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: WELLS FARGO PAYCHECK MDL No. 2954
PROTECTION PROGRAM LITIGATION

DECLARATION OF KATHLEEN A. HERKENHOFF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF
KAREN’S CUSTOM GROOMING LLC’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF DNM
CONTRACTING, INC.’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF ACTIONS TO THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §1407 FOR
COORDINATED OR CONSOLIDATED PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS

I, Kathleen A. Herkenhoff, declare as follows:

1. I am an attorney licensed to practice before all of the courts of the State of

California. I am a partner with the law firm of Haeggquist & Eck, LLP, counsel of record for

Plaintiff in Karen’s Custom Grooming LLC v. Wells Fargo & Company, et al., pending before the

Honorable Chief Judge Larry Alan Burns in the Southern District of California (Case No. 3:20-

cv-00956-LAB-BGS) (the “KCG Action”).

2. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiff Karen’s Custom Grooming LLC’s

(“KCG”) Opposition to Plaintiff DNM Contracting, Inc.’s Motion for Transfer of Actions to the
Southern District of Texas Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 for Coordinated or Consolidated Pretrial

Proceedings (the “DNM Motion”).

3. I have conferred with Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, one of the counsel for Defendant

Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (the “Defendants”), in connection with the

KCG Action on several occasions, between approximately June 11, 2020 and June 22, 2020, in

connection with the preparation, drafting, and submission of Exhibits 1 and 2 attached to this

declaration. Exhibits 1 and 2 (the “KCG Stipulations”) are stipulated joint motions to extend the
Case MDL No. 2954 Document 35 Filed 06/25/20 Page 2 of 49

Defendants’ time to answer or otherwise respond to the operative complaint in the KCG Action.

During those discussions, as documented in the KCG Stipulations, the parties to the KCG Action

did discuss some aspects of the related actions pending in the above-captioned MDL, notably the

schedule for responses by Defendants to the operative complaints in those actions. The

undersigned also noted that KCG would be issuing a document preservation letter to Defendants

now that they had appeared through counsel in the KCG Action.

4. On various dates and times prior to the notification by ECF of the filing of ECF No.

17 (Defendants’ response in opposition to the DNM Motion), the undersigned Plaintiff’s counsel

has made inquiries of Defendants’ counsel as to the position that Defendants anticipated taking on

the DNM Motion, such as if Defendants had a preferred district and other matters. While all

communications with Defendants’ counsel have been cordial and professional, until receipt of ECF

No. 17, KCG did not receive the requested information from Defendants’ counsel with which to

evaluate the position that Defendants intended to take in response to the DNM Motion, including

with regard to a preferred district due to the location of documents or witnesses. After ECF No.

17 was filed, I did receive a return call from one of Defendants’ counsel, but I still do not have the

requested information on the location of key corporate documents and witnesses. Certainly, as

alleged in the KCG Action, and as also noted in ECF No. 17, KCG received communications from

employees of one or more of the Defendants, including communications initiated from locations

within San Diego, California, and Defendants each have principal offices in California.

5. Attached are true and correct copies of the following exhibits:

EXHIBIT NO. DESCRIPTION

Joint Motion to Extend Time for Defendants to Respond to Complaint, filed
1. June 16, 2020 in Karen’s Custom Grooming LLC v. Wells Fargo & Company,
et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00956-LAB-BGS (S.D. Cal.) (the “KCG Action”).

Joint Motion to Extend Time for Defendants to Respond to Complaint, filed
2.
June 22, 2020 in the KCG Action.

2
Case MDL No. 2954 Document 35 Filed 06/25/20 Page 3 of 49

EXHIBIT NO. DESCRIPTION

Stipulation to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404(a); Order, filed on
3. or about July 21, 2015 in Maldonado v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No.
3:15-cv-02333-CRB (N D. Cal.) (the “Maldonado Action”).

Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s Notice of Motion and Motion to
4. Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404(a), filed on or about July 2, 2015 in the
Maldonado Action.

I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the

foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 24th day of June 2020, in San Diego, California.

s/ Kathleen A. Herkenhoff
KATHLEEN A. HERKENHOFF

3
Case MDL No. 2954 Document 35 Filed 06/25/20 Page 4 of 49

EXHIBIT 1
Case Case MDL
3:20-cv-00956-LAB-BGS
No. 2954 Document
Document35
6 Filed
Filed06/16/20
06/25/20 PageID.66
Page 5 of 49
Page 1 of 6

1 Brendan P. Cullen (SBN 194057)
(cullenb@sullcrom.com)
2 Sverker K. Hogberg (SBN 244640)
(hogbergs@sullcrom.com)
3 SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
1870 Embarcadero Road
4 Palo Alto, California 94303
Telephone: (650) 461-5600
5 Facsimile: (650) 461-5700
6 David Carlyle Powell (SBN 129781)
(dpowell@mcguirewoods.com)
7 Carolee Anne Hoover (SBN 282018)
(choover@mcguirewoods.com)
8 Jamie Danielle Wells (SBN 290827)
(jwells@mcguirewoods.com)
9 MCGUIREWOODS LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300
10 San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 844-9944
11 Facsimile: (415) 844-9922
12 Counsel for Defendants Wells Fargo &
Company
13 and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

14 [Additional counsel listed on signature page]
15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
17

19 KAREN’S CUSTOM GROOMING LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00956-LAB-BGS
a California Limited Liability Company,
20 On Behalf of Itself and On Behalf of JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND TIME
Similarly Situated Businesses and FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND
21 Individuals, TO COMPLAINT
Plaintiff,
22
v. The Hon. Larry A. Burns
23

24 WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, a
Delaware Corporation; WELLS FARGO
25 BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION;
and DOES 1-10, Inclusive,
26
Defendants.
27

JOINT MOTION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
SULLIVAN &
CROMWELL LLP CASE NO. 3:20-CV-00956-LAB-BGS
Case Case MDL
3:20-cv-00956-LAB-BGS
No. 2954 Document
Document35
6 Filed
Filed06/16/20
06/25/20 PageID.67
Page 6 of 49
Page 2 of 6

1 Defendants Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
2 (“Defendants”) and plaintiff Karen’s Custom Grooming LLC (“Plaintiff”; together with
3 Defendants, the “Parties”), by and through undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Federal
4 Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 6(b)(1)(A) and Civil Local Rules 7.2 and 12.1, hereby
5 move the Court to extend the time for Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to
6 Plaintiff’s Class Action Complaint for Damages and Equitable Relief (“Complaint”) in
7 the above-captioned action (“Action”) to June 25, 2020.
8 WHEREAS, Karen’s Custom Grooming LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant
9 action on May 22, 2020 against Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
10 WHEREAS, Defendants were served with a summons and complaint on or
11 about May 28, 2020.
12 WHEREAS, Defendants’ current deadline to answer or respond to the
13 complaint is June 18, 2020.
14 WHEREAS, on June 9, 2020, a Motion for Transfer of Actions to the
15 Southern District of Texas Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 for Coordinated or Consolidated
16 Pretrial Proceeding (the “MDL Transfer Motion”) was filed with the Judicial Panel on
17 Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”), seeking to transfer this Action and seven other cases to
18 the Southern District of Texas for coordinated or consolidated proceedings in a
19 multidistrict litigation entitled In re Wells Fargo Paycheck Protection Plan Litigation,
20 MDL No. 2954.
21 WHEREAS, briefing on the MDL Transfer Motion is scheduled to begin on
22 June 24, 2020, and the JPML is scheduled to hold a hearing on the MDL Transfer Motion
23 on July 30, 2020.
24 WHEREAS, a notice of related case will shortly be filed in this Action
25 listing all the cases included in the MDL Transfer Motion, as well as any other known
26 cases that may be related to the Action that are not currently listed in the pending MDL
27 Transfer Motion (the “Related Actions”).
28

1 WHEREAS, under FRCP 6(b)(1)(A) and Civil Local Rule 12.1, the Court
2 may upon a showing of “good cause” extend the time for answering or moving to dismiss
3 a complaint, and it is Defendants’ position that good cause exists for the Court to extend
4 the Defendants’ time to respond to the Complaint because an extension will promote
5 judicial economy, avoid inconsistent rulings, and conserve the efforts and resources of
6 both the parties and the Court while the parties address MDL-related issues.
7 WHEREAS, Plaintiff has agreed to extend the time for Defendants to
8 answer or respond to the Complaint to a date that is the same as the earliest response due
9 to the operative complaints in the pending Related Actions, which Defendants currently
10 represent is June 25, 2020.
11 WHEREAS, Defendants agree not to file any 28 U.S.C. Section 1404 or
12 similar motions to transfer the Action to a different jurisdiction, but shall instead brief the
13 MDL Transfer Motion.
14 WHEREAS, Defendants reserve the right to seek further extensions of their
15 deadline to respond to or answer Plaintiff’s complaint in light of the JPML proceedings.
16 WHEREFORE, the Parties respectfully stipulate and request that the Court
17 grant this Joint Motion and enter an Order extending the time within which Defendants
18 may respond to the Complaint up to and including June 25, 2020. The Parties further
19 agree that, at such time as any responsive motion is due, they shall confer in advance and
20 submit a further joint motion and proposed order seeking a mutually convenient briefing
21 and hearing schedule.
22 IT IS SO STIPULATED.
23

-2-
JOINT MOTION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
SULLIVAN &
CROMWELL LLP CASE NO. 3:20-CV-00956-LAB-BGS
Case Case MDL
3:20-cv-00956-LAB-BGS
No. 2954 Document
Document35
6 Filed
Filed06/16/20
06/25/20 PageID.69
Page 8 of 49
Page 4 of 6

2 DATED: June 16, 2020 s/ Sverker K. Hogberg
3
Brendan P. Cullen (SBN 194057)
(cullenb@sullcrom.com)
4
Sverker K. Hogberg (SBN 244640)
(hogbergs@sullcrom.com)
5
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
1870 Embarcadero Road
6
Palo Alto, California 94303-3308
Telephone: (650) 461-5600
7
Facsimile: (650) 461-5700

8
David Carlyle Powell (SBN 129781)
(dpowell@mcguirewoods.com)
9
Carolee Anne Hoover (SBN 282018)
(choover@mcguirewoods.com)
10
Jamie Danielle Wells (SBN 290827)
(jwells@mcguirewoods.com)
11
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300
12
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 844-9944
13
Facsimile: (415) 844-9922

14
Counsel for Defendants Wells Fargo &
Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
15

16
DATED: June 16, 2020 s/ Kathleen A. Herkenhoff
17 Alreen Haeggquist (SBN 221858)
alreenh@haelaw.com
18 Kathleen A. Herkenhoff (SBN 168562)
kathleenh@haelaw.com
19 Ian Pike (SBN 329183)
ianp@haelaw.com
20 HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP
225 Broadway, Suite 2050
21 San Diego, California 92101
Telephone: (619) 342-8000
22 Facsimile: (619) 342-7878
23 Counsel for Plaintiff
24

-3-
JOINT MOTION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
SULLIVAN &
CROMWELL LLP CASE NO. 3:20-CV-00956-LAB-BGS
Case Case MDL
3:20-cv-00956-LAB-BGS
No. 2954 Document
Document35
6 Filed
Filed06/16/20
06/25/20 PageID.70
Page 9 of 49
Page 5 of 6

1 Attestation
2

3 Pursuant to Southern District of California Electronic Case Filing
4 Administrative Policies and Procedures section 2.f.4, I certify that authorization for filing
5 this document has been obtained from each of the other signatories.
6

7 Dated: June 16, 2020 s/ Sverker K. Hogberg
8
Sverker K. Hogberg

-4-
JOINT MOTION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
SULLIVAN &
CROMWELL LLP CASE NO. 3:20-CV-00956-LAB-BGS
Case Case MDL
3:20-cv-00956-LAB-BGS
No. 2954 Document
Document356 Filed
Filed06/16/20
06/25/20 Page
PageID.71
10 of 49
Page 6 of 6

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2 I certify that on June 16, 2020, I filed the foregoing document with the Clerk
3 of Court for the United States District Court, Southern District of California, by using the
4 Court’s CM/ECF system, and also served counsel for record via this Court’s CM/ECF
5 system.
6 s/ Sverker K. Hogberg
7
Sverker K. Hogberg

JOINT MOTION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
SULLIVAN &
CROMWELL LLP CASE NO. 3:20-CV-00956-LAB-BGS
Case MDL No. 2954 Document 35 Filed 06/25/20 Page 11 of 49

EXHIBIT 2
Case Case MDL
3:20-cv-00956-LAB-BGS
No. 2954 Document
Document359 Filed
Filed06/22/20
06/25/20 Page
PageID.77
12 of 49
Page 1 of 6

15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
17

24 WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, a
Delaware Corporation; WELLS FARGO
25 BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION;
and DOES 1-10, Inclusive,
26
Defendants.
27

JOINT MOTION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
SULLIVAN &
CROMWELL LLP CASE NO. 3:20-CV-00956-LAB-BGS
Case Case MDL
3:20-cv-00956-LAB-BGS
No. 2954 Document
Document359 Filed
Filed06/22/20
06/25/20 Page
PageID.78
13 of 49
Page 2 of 6

1 Defendants Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
2 (“Defendants”) and plaintiff Karen’s Custom Grooming LLC (“Plaintiff”; together with
3 Defendants, the “Parties”), by and through undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Federal
4 Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 6(b)(1)(A) and Civil Local Rules 7.2 and 12.1, hereby
5 move the Court to further extend the time for Defendants to answer or otherwise respond
6 to Plaintiff’s Class Action Complaint for Damages and Equitable Relief (“Complaint”) in
7 the above-captioned action (“Action”) to August 4, 2020.
8 WHEREAS, Karen’s Custom Grooming LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant
9 action on May 22, 2020 against Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
10 WHEREAS, Defendants were served with a summons and complaint on or
11 about May 28, 2020.
12 WHEREAS, on June 17, 2020, the Court granted the parties’ Joint Motion to
13 Extend Time For Defendants Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
14 which extended Defendants to answer or respond to the complaint to June 25, 2020.
15 WHEREAS, Defendants’ current deadline to answer or respond to the
16 complaint is June 25, 2020.
17 WHEREAS, on June 9, 2020, a Motion for Transfer of Actions to the
18 Southern District of Texas Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 for Coordinated or Consolidated
19 Pretrial Proceeding (the “MDL Transfer Motion”) was filed with the Judicial Panel on
20 Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”), seeking to transfer this Action and seven other cases to
21 the Southern District of Texas for coordinated or consolidated proceedings in a
22 multidistrict litigation entitled In re Wells Fargo Paycheck Protection Plan Litigation,
23 MDL No. 2954.
24 WHEREAS, briefing on the MDL Transfer Motion is scheduled to begin on
25 June 24, 2020, and the JPML is scheduled to hold a hearing on the MDL Transfer Motion
26 on July 30, 2020.
27 WHEREAS, a notice of related case will shortly be filed in this Action
28 listing all the cases included in the MDL Transfer Motion, as well as any other known

1 cases that may be related to the Action that are not currently listed in the pending MDL
2 Transfer Motion (the “Related Actions”).
3 WHEREAS, under FRCP 6(b)(1)(A) and Civil Local Rule 12.1, the Court
4 may upon a showing of “good cause” extend the time for answering or moving to dismiss
5 a complaint, and it is Defendants’ position that good cause exists for the Court to extend
6 the Defendants’ time to respond to the Complaint because an extension will promote
7 judicial economy, avoid inconsistent rulings, and conserve the efforts and resources of
8 both the parties and the Court while the parties address MDL-related issues.
9 WHEREAS, Plaintiff has agreed to extend the time for Defendants to
10 answer or respond to the Complaint to August 4, 2020, which Defendants represent is the
11 date that is the same as the earliest response due to the operative complaints in the
12 pending Related Actions.
13 WHEREAS, Defendants agree not to file any 28 U.S.C. Section 1404 or
14 similar motions to transfer the Action to a different jurisdiction, but shall instead brief the
15 MDL Transfer Motion.
16 WHEREAS, Defendants reserve the right to seek further extensions of their
17 deadline to respond to or answer Plaintiff’s complaint in light of the JPML proceedings.
18 WHEREFORE, the Parties respectfully stipulate and request that the Court
19 grant this Joint Motion and enter an Order extending the time within which Defendants
20 may respond to the Complaint up to and including August 4, 2020. The Parties further
21 agree that, at such time as any responsive motion is due, they shall confer in advance and
22 submit a further joint motion and proposed order seeking a mutually convenient briefing
23 and hearing schedule.
24 IT IS SO STIPULATED.
25

-2-
JOINT MOTION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
SULLIVAN &
CROMWELL LLP CASE NO. 3:20-CV-00956-LAB-BGS
Case Case MDL
3:20-cv-00956-LAB-BGS
No. 2954 Document
Document359 Filed
Filed06/22/20
06/25/20 Page
PageID.80
15 of 49
Page 4 of 6

2 DATED: June 22, 2020 s/ Sverker K. Hogberg
3
Brendan P. Cullen (SBN 194057)
(cullenb@sullcrom.com)
4
Sverker K. Hogberg (SBN 244640)
(hogbergs@sullcrom.com)
5
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
1870 Embarcadero Road
6
Palo Alto, California 94303-3308
Telephone: (650) 461-5600
7
Facsimile: (650) 461-5700

14
Counsel for Defendants Wells Fargo &
Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
15

16
DATED: June 22, 2020 s/ Kathleen A. Herkenhoff
17 Alreen Haeggquist (SBN 221858)
alreenh@haelaw.com
18 Kathleen A. Herkenhoff (SBN 168562)
kathleenh@haelaw.com
19 Ian Pike (SBN 329183)
ianp@haelaw.com
20 HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP
225 Broadway, Suite 2050
21 San Diego, California 92101
Telephone: (619) 342-8000
22 Facsimile: (619) 342-7878
23 Counsel for Plaintiff
24

-3-
JOINT MOTION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
SULLIVAN &
CROMWELL LLP CASE NO. 3:20-CV-00956-LAB-BGS
Case Case MDL
3:20-cv-00956-LAB-BGS
No. 2954 Document
Document359 Filed
Filed06/22/20
06/25/20 Page
PageID.81
16 of 49
Page 5 of 6

1 Attestation
2 Pursuant to Southern District of California Electronic Case Filing
3 Administrative Policies and Procedures section 2.f.4, I certify that authorization for filing
4 this document has been obtained from each of the other signatories.
5

6 Dated: June 22, 2020 s/ Sverker K. Hogberg
7
Sverker K. Hogberg

-4-
JOINT MOTION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
SULLIVAN &
CROMWELL LLP CASE NO. 3:20-CV-00956-LAB-BGS
Case Case MDL
3:20-cv-00956-LAB-BGS
No. 2954 Document
Document359 Filed
Filed06/22/20
06/25/20 Page
PageID.82
17 of 49
Page 6 of 6

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2 I certify that on June 22, 2020, I filed the foregoing document with the Clerk
3 of Court for the United States District Court, Southern District of California, by using the
4 Court’s CM/ECF system, and also served counsel for record via this Court’s CM/ECF
5 system.
6 s/ Sverker K. Hogberg
7
Sverker K. Hogberg

-5-
JOINT MOTION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
SULLIVAN &
CROMWELL LLP CASE NO. 3:20-CV-00956-LAB-BGS
Case MDL No. 2954 Document 35 Filed 06/25/20 Page 18 of 49

EXHIBIT 3
Case
Case MDL No. 2954 Document
3:15-cv-01646-BTM-JLB 35 Filed
Document 16 06/25/20 PagePage
Filed 07/16/15 19 of149
of 5

1 ERIC J. TROUTMAN (State Bar No. 229263)
ejt@severson.com
2 DIVYA S. GUPTA (State Bar No. 284282)
dsg@severson.com
3 SEVERSON & WERSON
A Professional Corporation
4 The Atrium
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 700
5 Irvine, California 92612
Telephone: (949) 442-7110
6 Facsimile: (949) 442-7118

7 MARK D. LONERGAN (State Bar No. 143622)
mdl@severson.com
8 SEVERSON & WERSON
A Professional Corporation
9 One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600
San Francisco, California 94111
10 Telephone: (415) 398-3344
Facsimile: (415) 956-0439
11
Attorneys for Defendant
12 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN FRANCISCO COURTHOUSE
15
RANASEE MALDONADO, individually and Case No. 3:15-cv-02333-CRB
16 on behalf of all others similarly situated, Hon. Charles R. Breyer
Courtroom 6 – 17th Floor
17 Plaintiff,

18 vs. CLASS ACTION
19 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., a South STIPULATION TO TRANSFER VENUE
Dakota association, PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a);
20 [PROPOSED] ORDER
Defendant.
21
Action Filed: May 26, 2015
22 Trial Date: None Set

07685.1488/4430143.1 Case No. 3:15-cv-02333-CRB
Stipulation to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
Case
Case MDL No. 2954 Document
3:15-cv-01646-BTM-JLB 35 Filed
Document 16 06/25/20 PagePage
Filed 07/16/15 20 of249
of 5

1 Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) and Plaintiff Ranasee Maldonado

2 (“Plaintiff”) (collectively referred to as the “Parties”), through their respective counsel of record

3 hereby agree and stipulate as follows:

4 WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed his class action Complaint in this matter on May 26, 2014 in the

5 United States District Court for Northern District of California;

6 WHEREAS, subject to two stipulations enlarging time, Wells Fargo’s time to file its

7 responsive pleading was extended to July 14, 2015;

8 WHEREAS Wells Fargo filed a Motion for Transfer of Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

9 1404(a) on July 2, 2015;

10 WHEREAS, Wells Fargo contends at least one forum identified in its Motion for Transfer

11 of Venue, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (“Southern

12 District”), has superior connection to this case under the applicable private and public interest

13 factors; and

14 WHEREAS, the parties agree that the Southern District is a viable and appropriate

15 alternate venue;

16 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED:

17 1. This action shall be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern

18 District of California;
19

20 IT IS SO STIPULATED.
21

22 DATED: July 16, 2015 SEVERSON & WERSON
A Professional Corporation
23

25 By: /s/ Eric J. Troutman
Eric J. Troutman, Esq.
26
Attorneys for Defendant
27
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
28

07685.1488/4430143.1 1 Case No. 3:15-cv-02333-CRB
Stipulation to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
Case
Case MDL No. 2954 Document
3:15-cv-01646-BTM-JLB 35 Filed
Document 16 06/25/20 PagePage
Filed 07/16/15 21 of349
of 5

1 DATED: July 16, 2015 AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC

3
By: /s/ Robert Ahdoot
4 Robert Ahdoot, Esq.

5 Attorneys for Plaintiff
6 RANASEE MALDONADO

9
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5-1(i)(3) regarding signatures, I, Eric J. Troutman, attest that
10
concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the other signatories.
11

13 By: /s/ Eric J. Troutman
Eric J. Troutman, Esq.
14

18
19

07685.1488/4430143.1 2 Case No. 3:15-cv-02333-CRB
Stipulation to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
Case
Case MDL No. 2954 Document
3:15-cv-01646-BTM-JLB 35 Filed
Document 16 06/25/20 PagePage
Filed 07/16/15 22 of449
of 5

1 ORDER
2 PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
3 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the Court DIRECTS the clerk to transfer this action, in its

4 entirety, to the Southern District of California, for all further proceedings.

6
By:
7
Honorable Charles R. Bryer
8 United States District Court Judge

18
19

07685.1488/4430143.1 Case No. 3:15-cv-02333-CRB
Order Re Stipulation to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
Case
Case MDL No. 2954 Document
3:15-cv-01646-BTM-JLB 35 Filed
Document 16 06/25/20 PagePage
Filed 07/16/15 23 of549
of 5

1 PROOF OF SERVICE
Maldonado v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
2 USDC Northern District Case No. 4:15-cv-02333-CRB

3 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am
employed in the County of Orange, State of California. My business address is The Atrium,
4 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 700, Irvine, CA 92612.

5 On July 16, 2015, I served true copies of the following document(s):

6 STIPULATION TO TRANSFER VENUE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(A);
[PROPOSED] ORDER
7
on the interested parties in this action as follows:
8

9
Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff
10 Tina Wolfson, Esq. RANASEE MALDONADO
Brad King, Esq.
11 AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC Telephone: (310) 474-9111
1016 Palm Ave. Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
12 West Hollywood, CA 90069 rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
13 bking@ahdootwolfson.com
14 Joseph J. Siprut, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff
Ismael T. Salam, Esq. RANASEE MALDONADO
15 SIPRUT PC
17 N. State St., Suite 1600 Telephone: (312) 236-0000
16 Chicago, IL 60602 Facsimile: (312) 241-1260
jsiprut@siprut.com
17 isalam@siprut.com
18

19 [ID BY CM/ECF NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING: I electronically filed the
document(s) with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system. Participants in the
20 case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the CM/ECF system. Participants
in the case who are not registered CM/ECF users will be served by mail or by other means
21 permitted by the court rules.
22 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing is true and correct. I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of
23 this Court at whose direction the service was made.

24 Executed on July 16, 2015, at Irvine, California.
25

26
Taylor P. Hankins
27

07685.1488/4430143.1 Case No. 3:15-cv-02333-CRB
Proof of Service
Case MDL No. 2954 Document 35 Filed 06/25/20 Page 24 of 49

EXHIBIT 4
Case
Case MDL No. 2954 Document
3:15-cv-01646-BTM-JLB 35 Filed
Document 10 06/25/20 PagePage
Filed 07/02/15 25 of149
of 2

1 ERIC J. TROUTMAN (State Bar No. 229263)
ejt@ severson.com
2 DIVYA S. GUPTA (State Bar No. 284282)
dsg@ severson.com
3 SEVERSON & WERSON
A Professional Corporation
4 The Atrium
19100 Von Karman Avenue,Suite 700
5 Irvine,California 92612
Telephone: (949)442-7110
6 Facsimile: (949)442-7118

7 MARK D. LONERGAN (State Bar No. 143622)
mdl@ severson.com
8 SEVERSON & WERSON
A Professional Corporation
9 One Embarcadero Center,Suite 2600
San Francisco,California 94111
10 Telephone: (415)398-3344
Facsimile: (415)956-0439
11
Attorneys for Defendant
12 WELLS FARGO BANK,N.A.

13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — OAKLAND DIVISION
15 RANASEEMALDONADO,individually and Case No. 4:15-cv-02333-KAW
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Hon. Kandis A. Westmore
16 Courtroom 4,3rd Floor
Plaintiff,
17 CLASS ACTION
vs.
18 DEFENDANT WELLS FARGO BANK,
WELLS FARGO BANK,N.A.,a South N.A.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
19 Dakota association, MOTION TO TRANSFER PURSUANT
TO 28 U.S.C. 1404(a)
20 Defendant.
[Memorandum of Points and Authorities;
21 Declaration of John Heyse; [Proposed]
Order]
22
Date: August 20,2015
23 Time: 11:00 a.m.
Crtrm.: 4
24
Action Filed: May 26,2015
25 Trial Date: None Set

07685.1488/4185859.1 Case No. 4:15-cv-02333-KAW
Notice of Motion and Motion to Transfer Pursuant to 28U.S.C. 1404(a)
Case
Case MDL No. 2954 Document
3:15-cv-01646-BTM-JLB 35 Filed
Document 10 06/25/20 PagePage
Filed 07/02/15 26 of249
of 2

1 PLEASETAKENOTICEthat,on August 20,2015,at 11:00 a.m.,or as soon thereafter as

2 the matter may be heard in the above entitled Court,located at 1300 Clay Street,Oakland,CA

3 94612,Defendant Wells Fargo Bank,N.A. (“Wells Fargo”)will and hereby does move,pursuant

4 28U.S.C. §1404(a),to transfer venue to the Southern District of Iowa,the Central District of

5 California,or the Southern District of California.

6 This motion is made on the grounds that (i)venue is proper in alternate,superior,venues;

7 (ii)Plaintiffs’choice of forum is not entitled to deference;(iii)the three alternate,superior,venues

8 are more convenient for the parties and witnesses;(iv)the three alternate,superior,venues provide

9 the parties greater ease of access to the evidence;(v)familiarity with governing law does not

10 mitigate against transfer;(vi)the three alternate,superior,venues have a superior local interest in

11 the controversy;and (vii)relative court congestion favors transfer.

12 This motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion,the accompanying

13 Memorandum of Points and Authorities and the Declaration of John Heyse,the Complaint,and all

14 other papers on file in this action.

16 DATED: July 2,2015 SEVERSON & WERSON
A Professional Corporation
17

18
19 By: /s/ Eric J. Troutman
Eric J. Troutman
20

21
Attorneys for Defendant
22 WELLS FARGO BANK,N.A.
23

07685.1488/4185859.1 i Case No. 4:15-cv-02333-KAW
Notice of Motion and Motion to Transfer Pursuant to 28U.S.C. 1404(a)
Case
Case MDL No. 2954 Document
3:15-cv-01646-BTM-JLB 35 10-1
Document Filed 06/25/20 PagePage
Filed 07/02/15 27 of149
of 17

1 ERIC J. TROUTMAN (State Bar No. 229263)
ejt@ severson.com
2 DIVYA S. GUPTA (State Bar No. 284282)
dsg@ severson.com
3 SEVERSON & WERSON
A Professional Corporation
4 The Atrium
19100 Von Karman Avenue,Suite 700
5 Irvine,California 92612
Telephone: (949)442-7110
6 Facsimile: (949)442-7118

7 MARK D. LONERGAN (State Bar No. 143622)
mdl@ severson.com
8 SEVERSON & WERSON
A Professional Corporation
9 One Embarcadero Center,Suite 2600
San Francisco,California 94111
10 Telephone: (415)398-3344
Facsimile: (415)956-0439
11
Attorneys for Defendant
12 WELLS FARGO BANK,N.A.

13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — OAKLAND DIVISION
15 RANASEEMALDONADO,individually and Case No. 4:15-cv-02333-KAW
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Hon. Kandis A. Westmore
16 Courtroom 4,3rd Floor
Plaintiff,
17 CLASS ACTION
vs.
18 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
WELLS FARGO BANK,N.A.,a South AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
19 Dakota association, DEFENDANT WELLS FARGO BANK,
N.A.’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
20 Defendant. PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
21 [Filed concurrently with Notice of Motion and
Motion; Declaration of John Heyse;
22 [Proposed] Order]

23 Date: August 20,2015
Time: 11:00 a.m.
24 Crtrm.: 4

25 Action Filed: May 26,2015
Trial Date: None Set
26

07685.1488/4233059.1 Case No. 4:15-cv-02333-KAW
Memorandum in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue
Case
Case MDL No. 2954 Document
3:15-cv-01646-BTM-JLB 35 10-1
Document Filed 06/25/20 PagePage
Filed 07/02/15 28 of249
of 17

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

2 Page
3
I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1
4
II. LEGALSTANDARD .................................................................................................................. 2
5
III. ARGUMENT— WELLS FARGO’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUESHOULD
6 BEGRANTED...................................................................................................................... 3

7 A. Alternative Forums Exist .......................................................................................... 3

8 B. Plaintiff’s Chosen Forum is Entitled to Little Deference.......................................... 4

9 C. The Convenience of the Witnesses and Parties Weigh in Favor of a Transfer ......... 6

10 D. The Public Interest Factors Also Favor Transfer to a Superior Venue ..................... 8

11 1. The Southern District of California is the Forum Most Familiar with
Applicable Law ............................................................................................. 8
12
2. The Southern District of California Offers the Potential for
13 Consolidation with Other Pending TCPA Class Litigation Involving
Wells Fargo ................................................................................................... 9
14
3. The Alternate Venues all Have a Greater Local Interest in the
15 Controversy than the Northern District of California ................................. 10

16 4. Relative Court Congestion In The Respective Forums Favor
Transfer to Any of the Superior Venues ..................................................... 11
17
IV. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 12
18
19

i Case No. 4:15-cv-02333-KAW
Table of Contents
Case
Case MDL No. 2954 Document
3:15-cv-01646-BTM-JLB 35 10-1
Document Filed 06/25/20 PagePage
Filed 07/02/15 29 of349
of 17

1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2 Page(s)
3 Cases

4 A.J. Indus., Inc. v. United States District Court,

5 503F.2d 384(9th Cir. 1974)........................................................................................................6

6 Barani v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
No. 12CV2999-GPC KSC,2014WL1389329 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 9,2014)....................................8
7
Cambridge v. Millard Refrigerated Servs., Inc.,
8 No. C 12-1460 CW,2012 WL1755750 (N.D. Cal. May 16,2012)........................................5,6
9 Cardoza v. T–Mobile USA Inc.,
No. 08–5120,2009 WL723843(N.D.Cal. Mar. 18,2009).........................................................9
10

11 Carolina Cas. Co. v. Data Broadcasting Corp.,
158F. Supp. 2d 1044(N.D. Cal. 2001).....................................................................................10
12
Clark v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.,
13 No. C 10–03625 SI,2010 WL5173872 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15,2010)............................................6
14 Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Savage,
611 F.2d 270 (9th Cir. 1979)........................................................................................................3
15

16 Connor v. JPMorgan Chase Bank et al.,
No. 10-cv-1284(S.D. Cal. filed June 16,2010)...........................................................................8
17
Cont'l Grain Co. v. The FBL–585,
18 364U.S. 19 (1960).......................................................................................................................9

19 Couser v. Comenity Bank et al.,
No. 12-cv-02484(S.D. Cal. filed October 12,2012)...................................................................8
20
Ctr. for Food Safety v. Vilsack,
21
No. C–11–00831,2011 WL996343(N.D. Cal. March 17,2011).............................................11
22
Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co.,
23 805 F.2d 834(9th Cir. 1986)......................................................................................................10

24 Franklin v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
No. 14-cv-02349 (S.D. Cal. filed October 3,2014).....................................................................9
25
Geo. F. Martin Co. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Am.,
26 No. C03-5859 SI,2004WL1125048(N.D. Cal. May 14,2004)..............................................11
27
Gerin v. Aegon USA, Inc.,
28 No. 06-5407,2007WL1033472 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 4,2007).........................................................5

ii Case No. 4:15-cv-02333-KAW
Table of Authorities
Case
Case MDL No. 2954 Document
3:15-cv-01646-BTM-JLB 35 10-1
Document Filed 06/25/20 PagePage
Filed 07/02/15 30 of449
of 17

1 Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.,
820 F.Supp. 503(C.D. Cal. 1992)................................................................................................3
2
Gulf Oil Corp. v Gilbert,
3 330 U.S. 501 (1947).....................................................................................................................3
4
Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co.,
5 758F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1985)........................................................................................................4

6 Hawkes v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
No. CV-10-05957-EJD,2012 WL506569 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15,2012)................................10,11
7
Heartland Payment Sys., Inc. v. Mercury Payment Sys., LLC,
8 No. C 14-0437CW,2014WL5695051 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4,2014).............................................5
9 Hoefer v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce,

10 No. C 00 0918VRW,2000 WL890862 (N.D. Cal. June 28,2000)...........................................1

11 Inherent.com v. Martindale-Hubbell,
420 F. Supp. 2d 1093(N.D. Cal. 2006)...................................................................................5,6
12
Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc.,
13 211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2000)........................................................................................................3
14 Lund v. JP Morgan Chase USA,

15 No. 12-cv-2554(S.D. Cal. filed Oct. 19,2012)...........................................................................8

16 Malta v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.,
No. 10-CV-1290 BEN NLS,2013WL444619 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 5,2013)......................7,8,9,10
17
Marinus v. Altria Grp. Distribution Co.,
18 No. C 11-4665 PJH,2012 WL588705 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 22,2012)..............................................2
19 Martin v. Global Tel*Link Corp.,
No. 15-CV-00449-YGR,2015 WL2124379 (N.D. Cal. May 6,2015)..................................4,6
20

21 Metz v. United States Life Ins. Co.,
674F. Supp. 2d 1141 (C.D. Cal. 2009)........................................................................................3
22
Nicole Newman v. AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.,
23 No. 11-cv-3041 (S.D. Cal. filed Dec. 29,2011)...........................................................................8
24 Pac. Car & Foundry Co. v. Pence,
403F.2d 949 (9th Cir. 1968)........................................................................................................4
25
Park v. Dole Fresh Vegetables, Inc.,
26
964F. Supp. 2d 1088(N.D. Cal. 2013)...............................................................................2,4,5
27
Prather v Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
28 No. 15-cv-01296 (S.D. Cal. filed June 11,2015)...................................................................9,10

iii Case No. 4:15-cv-02333-KAW
Table of Authorities
Case
Case MDL No. 2954 Document
3:15-cv-01646-BTM-JLB 35 10-1
Document Filed 06/25/20 PagePage
Filed 07/02/15 31 of549
of 17

1 Roling v. E* Trade Securities, LLC,
756 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (N.D. Cal. 2010).......................................................................................2
2
Rooney v. Rite Aid Corporation,
3 No. 14-cv-01249 (S.D. Cal. filed May 20,2014).........................................................................8
4
Sarinana v. DS Waters of Am., Inc.,
5 No. C-13-0905 EMC,2013WL3456687(N.D. Cal. July 9,2013)............................................5

6 Sloan v. Pfizer, Inc.,
2008WL4167083(N.D. Cal. 2008)............................................................................................7
7
Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.,
8 487U.S. 22 (1988).......................................................................................................................4
9 Strigliabotti v. Franklin Res., Inc.,

10 No. C-04-0883,2004WL2254556 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5,2004)................................................5,10

11 Trenz v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc. et al.,
No. 15-cv-00044(S.D. Cal. filed January 8,2015).....................................................................8
12
Van Dusen v. Barrack,
13 376 U.S. 612,84S.Ct. 805 (1964)...............................................................................................2
14 Vu v. Ortho-Mcneil Pharm., Inc.,

15 602 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (N.D. Cal. 2009.)............................................................................3,8,10

16 Williams v. Bowman,
157F. Supp. 2d 1103(N.D. Cal. 2001).......................................................................................5
17
Statutes
18
28U.S.C. §1404(a).................................................................................................................. passim
19
Telephone Consumer Protection Act,47U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii)............................. passim
20
Other Authorities
21

22 Local Rule 40.1(i)...............................................................................................................................9

23 Local Rule 40.1.e ...............................................................................................................................9

24 Local Rule 40.1(f)..............................................................................................................................9

iv Case No. 4:15-cv-02333-KAW
Table of Authorities
Case
Case MDL No. 2954 Document
3:15-cv-01646-BTM-JLB 35 10-1
Document Filed 06/25/20 PagePage
Filed 07/02/15 32 of649
of 17

1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 Plaintiff,Ranasee Maldonado (“Plaintiff”or “Maldonado”),brings this putative class

3 action claiming that Wells Fargo Bank,N.A. (“Wells Fargo”)violated the Telephone Consumer

4
Protection Act (“TCPA”),47U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii),by using pre-recorded message to
5
contact her cell phone without her consent.
6
Plaintiff’s suit was filed in an improper venue. Although Plaintiff is a Los Angeles area
7
resident1 and her counsel resides in Southern California,she has filed suit in Oakland,California.
8

9 Oakland has no discernable connection to this lawsuit. While Wells Fargo has been unable
2
10 to locate any calls to the Plaintiff’s phone number, any calls from Wells Fargo’s Home Mortgage3
11 business line do not emanate from call centers in Northern California. Declaration of John Heyse,

12
¶8. All pertinent Wells Fargo data and witnesses are located in Iowa and the dialing technology is
13
located in Minneapolis,Minnesota or San Bernardino,California. Declaration of John Heyse,¶6-
14
8. Similarly,the Plaintiff is located in Southern California and all pertinent witnesses to
15

16 Plaintiff’s claim— such as individuals that can attest she received calls from Wells Fargo—

17 presumably also reside in Southern California. Counsel for both the Plaintiff and Wells Fargo also

18 reside in Southern California.
19 But “[l]itigation should proceed where the case finds its ‘center of gravity,
’i.e.,where the
20
majority of the documents and witnesses are located.” Hoefer v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce,No. C
21
00 0918VRW,2000 WL890862,*3(N.D. Cal. June 28,2000)(internal citations omitted). In
22
this case three alternate venues exist— the Southern District of Iowa,the Central District of
23

24 California and the Southern District of California— all of which offer superior convenience to the

26
1
Complaint,¶9.
27 2 Declaration of John Heyse,¶8.
3
The calls at issue pertained to a consumer home mortgage account. Complaint ¶16.
28

1 Case No. 4:15-cv-02333-KAW
Memorandum in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue
Case
Case MDL No. 2954 Document
3:15-cv-01646-BTM-JLB 35 10-1
Document Filed 06/25/20 PagePage
Filed 07/02/15 33 of749
of 17

1 parties,witnesses,and their counsel.4

2 As Plaintiff has selected a forum that is not her residence,her choice of forum is entitled to
3
little deference. Marinus v. Altria Grp. Distribution Co.,No. C 11-4665 PJH,2012 WL588705,
4
at *5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 22,2012)citing,Lucas v. Daiichi Sankyo Co.,2011 WL2020443,at *3
5
(N.D. Cal. May 24,2011);Roling v. E* Trade Securities, LLC,756 F. Supp. 2d 1179,1185 (N.D.
6
Cal. 2010). This is especially true as the Plaintiff here is pursuing a class action. See Park v. Dole
7

8 Fresh Vegetables, Inc.,964F. Supp. 2d 1088,1094(N.D. Cal. 2013)(noting that class plaintiff’s

9 choice of forum is entitled to less deference.)

10 On the other hand,a transfer is supported by almost all of the private and public interest
11
factors set forth in 28U.S.C. §1404(a),including the convenience of the parties,the convenience
12
of the witnesses,and access to the evidence. Those factors that do not favor a transfer are neutral.
13
None support Plaintiff’s chosen venue. As such,Wells Fargo moves that the case be transferred to
14

15 a more convenient forum. 28U.S.C. §1404(a).

16 II. LEGAL STANDARD

17 This motion for transfer of venue is governed by 28U.S.C. §1404(a),which provides that

18 “for the convenience of parties and witnesses,in the interest of justice,a district court may transfer
19 any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.” 28U.S.C. §

20
1404(a). The purpose of this provision is to “prevent the waste of time,energy,and money and to
21
protect litigants,witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense.” Van
22
Dusen v. Barrack,376 U.S. 612,616,84S.Ct. 805 (1964)(internal citations and quotations
23

24 omitted).

26 4
As noted below,the private interest factors support a transfer to the Central District of California
or the Southern District of Iowa. The public interest factors support a transfer to the Southern
27 District of California where similar cases against Wells Fargo have been decided and are currently
pending. Wells Fargo agrees to litigate this case in any of these superior venues.
28

2 Case No. 4:15-cv-02333-KAW
Memorandum in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue
Case
Case MDL No. 2954 Document
3:15-cv-01646-BTM-JLB 35 10-1
Document Filed 06/25/20 PagePage
Filed 07/02/15 34 of849
of 17

1 Transfer pursuant to §1404(a)lies within the broad discretion of the district court,

2 determined on an individualized case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness. Jones v.

3
GNC Franchising, Inc.,211 F.3d 495,498(9th Cir. 2000). A court may transfer an action where
4
(1)venue is proper in the transferor district;(2)the transferee district is one where the action could
5
have been brought;and (3)the transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and
6
promote the interest of justice. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.,820
7

8 F.Supp. 503,506 (C.D. Cal. 1992). “Thus,even when venue is proper where the action is

9 pending,section 1404(a)provides the Court with the discretion to transfer an action to a different

10 venue under certain circumstances.” Metz v. United States Life Ins. Co.,674F. Supp. 2d 1141,

11
1145 (C.D. Cal. 2009)(citation omitted).
12
Under Section 1404(a),the district court has discretion to adjudicate motions for transfer
13
by weighing both private and public factors. Gulf Oil Corp. v Gilbert,330 U.S. 501 (1947)
14

15 (Courts in all circuits generally lookto the private and public interest factors). “Weighing of the

16 factors for and against transfer involves subtle considerations and is best left to the discretion of

17 the trial judge.” Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Savage,611 F.2d 270,279 (9th Cir.

18 1979). In this district,courts generally consider eight factors. The first four pertain to the private
19
interest and the remaining four the public interest. These factors are:
20
(1)plaintiff’s choice of forum,(2)convenience of the parties,(3)convenience of
21 the witnesses,(4)ease of access to the evidence,(5)familiarity of each forum with
the applicable law,(6)feasibility of consolidation of other claims,(7)any local
22 interest in the controversy,and (8)the relative court congestion and time of trial in
each forum.
23
Vu v. Ortho-Mcneil Pharm., Inc.,602 F. Supp. 2d 1151,1156 (N.D. Cal. 2009.)
24
Here,all non-neutral factors favor transfer to one of the three available alternate venues.
25
III. ARGUMENT—WELLS FARGO’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE SHOULD BE
26 GRANTED
27 A. Alternative Forums Exist
28 “When determining whether a transfer is proper,a court must employ a two-step analysis.”

3 Case No. 4:15-cv-02333-KAW
Memorandum in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue
Case
Case MDL No. 2954 Document
3:15-cv-01646-BTM-JLB 35 10-1
Document Filed 06/25/20 PagePage
Filed 07/02/15 35 of949
of 17

1 Park, 964F. Supp. 2d at 1093. A court must first consider the threshold question of whether the

2 case could have been brought in the forum to which the moving party seeks to transfer the case.

3 Id. citing Hoffman v. Blaski,363U.S. 335,344(1960)and Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co.,758F.2d

4 409,414(9th Cir. 1985)(“In determining whether an action might have been brought in a district,

5 the court looks to whether the action initially could have been commenced in that district.”)

6 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Once the party seeking transfer has made this

7 showing,district courts have discretion to consider motions to change venue based on an

8 “individualized,case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.” Stewart Org., Inc. v.

9 Ricoh Corp.,487U.S. 22,29 (1988).

10 A proper district court is one: (1)that has subject matter jurisdiction;(2)where the

11 defendant would have been subject to personal jurisdiction;and (3)where venue would have been

12 proper. Martin v. Global Tel*Link Corp.,No. 15-CV-00449-YGR,2015 WL2124379,at *3

13 (N.D. Cal. May 6,2015). Here,there at least three alternative forums exist with superior

14 connection to this case:

15 1. Southern District of Iowa;

16 2. Central District of California;

17 3. Southern District of California.

18 As argued in sections C. and D. below,each of these districts is superior to the Northern
19 District of California given the private and public interest factors at issue under Section 1404(a).

20 B. Plaintiff’s Chosen Forum is Entitled to Little Deference
21 Ordinarily,a plaintiff has the right to choose the forum for his lawsuit and his selection of

22 an appropriate venue is given substantial deference. Park,964F. Supp. 2d at 1094. However,the

23 degree of deference is substantially diminished in several circumstances,including where: “(1)the

24 plaintiff'
s venue choice is not its residence;(2)the conduct giving rise to the claims occurred in a

25 different forum;[or](3)the plaintiff sues on behalf of a putative class… ”Id. (internal citations

26 omitted.)See also Pac. Car & Foundry Co. v. Pence,403F.2d 949,954(9th Cir. 1968)(“If the

27 operative facts have not occurred within the forum of original selection and that forum has no

28 particular interest in the parties or the subject matter,the plaintiff'
s choice is entitled only to

4 Case No. 4:15-cv-02333-KAW
Memorandum in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue
CaseCase MDL No. 2954 Document
3:15-cv-01646-BTM-JLB 35 10-1
Document Filed Filed
06/25/20 PagePage
07/02/15 36 of1049of 17

1 minimal consideration”);Sarinana v. DS Waters of Am., Inc., No. C-13-0905 EMC,2013WL

2 3456687,at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 9,2013)(“Here,Plaintiff is bringing a class action,and does not

3 reside in this district. His choice of forum is thus entitled to little deference”);Cambridge v.

4 Millard Refrigerated Servs., Inc.,No. C 12-1460 CW,2012 WL1755750,at *2 (N.D. Cal. May

5 16,2012)(Judge Wilken)(granting order to transfer venue finding,in part,“[g]iven the fact that

6 Plaintiff is not a resident of this forum,her choice is not afforded substantial deference);

7 Inherent.com v. Martindale-Hubbell,420 F. Supp. 2d 1093,1100 (N.D. Cal. 2006)(“the degree to

8 which courts defer to the plaintiff'
s chosen venue is substantially reduced when the plaintiff'
s

9 choice is not its residence or where the forum lacks a significant connection to the activities

10 alleged in the complaint”)(internal quotation marks and citations omitted);Strigliabotti v.

11 Franklin Res., Inc.,No. C-04-0883,2004WL2254556 *3(N.D. Cal. Oct. 5,2004)(“Where a

12 plaintiff’s choice of forum is a district other than one in which he resides,his choice may be given

13 considerably less weight.”)

14 Underlying each of these factors is concerns over the possibility of forum shopping.

15 Williams v. Bowman,157F. Supp. 2d 1103,1107(N.D. Cal. 2001)(“[t]he policy behind not

16 deferring to a nonresident plaintiff’s choice of venue appears tied to the notion that plaintiffs

17 should be discouraged from forum shopping”);Heartland Payment Sys., Inc. v. Mercury Payment

18 Sys., LLC,No. C 14-0437CW,2014WL5695051,at *4(N.D. Cal. Nov. 4,2014)(“[c]ourts have
19 found evidence of forum shopping when a party does not reside in the district,
”(citing Lucas,

20 2011 WL2020443at *4),or when,in a class action,the class members reside outside of the state,

21 (citing Wilson v. Walgreen Co.,2011 WL4345079,at *3(N.D. Cal.));See also Gerin v. Aegon

22 USA, Inc.,No. 06-5407,2007WL1033472,at *8(N.D. Cal. Apr. 4,2007)(“The interests of

23 justice strongly weigh in favor of granting the motion to transfer in order to discourage forum-

24 shopping”).

25 Here,the Plaintiff has elected to i)pursue a class action;ii)in a forum wholly unrelated to

26 the underlying facts in this case;and iii)hundreds of miles from her place of residence and the

27 offices of her chosen counsel. Her choice of forum should be looked upon with suspicion and is

28 entitled to little deference. Park,964F. Supp. 2d at 1094;Sarinana,2013WL3456687at *2;

5 Case No. 4:15-cv-02333-KAW
Memorandum in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue
CaseCase MDL No. 2954 Document
3:15-cv-01646-BTM-JLB 35 10-1
Document Filed Filed
06/25/20 PagePage
07/02/15 37 of1149of 17

1 Cambridge,2012 WL1755750 at *2;Inherent.com,420 F. Supp. 2d at 1100.5

2 C. The Convenience of the Witnesses and Parties Weigh in Favor of a Transfer
3 The convenience to the witnesses is the most important factor in a section 1404(a)analysis,

4 and the convenience of non-party witnesses is more important than the convenience of the parties.

5
Clark v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.,No. C 10–03625 SI,2010 WL5173872,at *3(N.D. Cal. Dec. 15,
6
2010),citing Saleh v. Titan Corp.,361 F. Supp. 2d 1152,1160 (S.D. Cal. 2005). In assessing the
7
convenience of witnesses,courts usually require that the party seeking transfer describe the key
8
witnesses to be called,where these witnesses are located,what their testimony will generally
9

10 cover,and why such testimony is relevant or necessary. A.J. Indus., Inc. v. United States District

11 Court,503F.2d 384(9th Cir. 1974).

12 In this case the primary witnesses will be:
13
1. The Plaintiff;
14
2. Witnesses that can confirm the Plaintiff owned the phone number dialed6 and that she
15
was,in fact,called;7
16

17 3. Witnesses from Wells Fargo Home Mortgage regarding the number of calls placed (if

18 any)to the Plaintiff’s phone number,the reason the calls (if any)were placed and the technology
19 used to place these calls (if any);and

20 4. Witnesses from Wells Fargo Home Mortgage that can and will testify regarding various
21
defenses— including the express consent of purported class members— applicable to the case.
22
As described in the Declaration of John Heyse,Wells Fargo’s mortgage division
23
5
24 Indeed,in Martin,2015 WL2124379 at *1,Judge Rogers of this court recently granted a
defendant’s motion to transfer venue in a putative TCPA class action under very similar
25 circumstances.
6
As Plaintiff was a non-customer that was not the intended recipient of the calls at issue,she will
26 need to demonstrate that she owned the phone at the time the calls were placed and that she
actually received some calls.
27 7 The TCPA forbids “mak[ing]a call”to a cell phone number without the express consent of the
“called party.”47U.S.C. §227(b)(1)(A).
28

6 Case No. 4:15-cv-02333-KAW
Memorandum in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue
CaseCase MDL No. 2954 Document
3:15-cv-01646-BTM-JLB 35 10-1
Document Filed Filed
06/25/20 PagePage
07/02/15 38 of1249of 17

1 (“WFHM”)is primarily headquartered in Des Moines,Iowa where several thousand WFHM

2 employees workat a multi-building complex,including agents responsible for collection calls.

3
Declaration of John Heyse,¶5. Moreover,the majority of the pertinent Wells Fargo witnesses
4
reside in Iowa;there are no WFHM employees involved in Operations in the Northern California
5
San Francisco area. Declaration of John Heyse,¶5. It is the WFHM officers and employees
6
mostly located in Des Moines who would be able to testify about its loan servicing operations and
7

8 its policies and procedures concerning telephone calls to borrowers in default,and specifically the

9 procedures related to leaving pre-recorded messages. Declaration of John Heyse,¶6.8

10 Further,Plaintiffs’convenience does not mitigate against the transfer of this case. Plaintiff
11
resides in Los Angeles,within the Central District of California. Her counsel too is located in Los
12
Angeles. Presumably,witnesses to her version of events also reside within that district as well.
13
Moreover,given its proximity to Los Angeles,the Southern District of California is a
14

15 viable and appropriate alternate choice that appears to be the best balance of the private and public
9
16 interest factors.

17 Accordingly,the convenience of the witnesses dictate that the case should be venued
18 elsewhere.10
19

20 8
While Wells Fargo has a holding company (Wells Fargo & Co.)headquartered in San Francisco,
21 inwas
it not involved in the creation,execution or supervision of the policies and practices at issue
this action. Declaration of John Heyse,¶4. Thus,the location the few directors and officers of
22 the holding company is irrelevant to the question of the convenience of witnesses.
9
As noted below,the Southern District of California is the most appropriate district when public
23 interest factors are considered— Judge Benitezof that district has already overseen a nationwide
TCPA class settlement involving this same business line of Wells Fargo Bank,N.A. See Malta v.
24 Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., No. 10-CV-1290 BEN NLS,2013WL444619,(S.D. Cal. Feb.
5,2013).
10
Similarly,the relevant documents at issue in this case are stored out-of-state. Wells Fargo Home
25 Mortgage maintains loan servicing records,which are stored on the mainframe computer system
F idelity MSP. Declaration of John Heyse,¶7. However,computer servers for Fidelity MSP are
26 not located in California. Id. Rather,they are maintained in Jacksonville,Florida and Little Rock,
Ark ansas. Id. The persons knowledgeable about how that system is programmed are located
27 throughout the United States, including Des Moines,Iowa. Id. Accordingly,the ease of access to
evidence also weighs in favor of transfer or is,at worst,neutral on the topic. See e.g. Sloan v.
28 (footnote continued)

7 Case No. 4:15-cv-02333-KAW
Memorandum in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue
CaseCase MDL No. 2954 Document
3:15-cv-01646-BTM-JLB 35 10-1
Document Filed Filed
06/25/20 PagePage
07/02/15 39 of1349of 17

1 D. The Public Interest Factors Also Favor Transfer to a Superior Venue
2 As noted above,the public interest factors are:

3 [1]familiarity of each forum with the applicable law;[2]feasibility of
consolidation of other claims,[3]any local interest in the controversy,and [4]the
4 relative court congestion and time of trial in each forum.
5 Vu,602 F. Supp. 2d at 1156.
6 1. The Southern District of California is the Forum Most Familiar with
Applicable Law
7
Certainly this Court is no stranger to TCPA litigation. Numerous such cases have been
8

9 filed in this district,and elsewhere around the country. It appears,however,that the Southern

10 District of California is the true hotbed for TCPA class litigation on the west coast. Numerous

11 recent TCPA class action settlements have been approved or are pending final approval in that

12 district. See Nicole Newman v. AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.,No. 11-cv-3041 (S.D. Cal.

13
filed Dec. 29,2011);Lund v. JP Morgan Chase USA,No. 12-cv-2554(S.D. Cal. filed Oct. 19,
14
2012);Connor v. JPMorgan Chase Bank et al.,No. 10-cv-1284(S.D. Cal. filed June 16,2010);
15
Couser v. Comenity Bank et al.,No. 12-cv-02484(S.D. Cal. filed October 12,2012);Trenz v.
16

17 Sirius XM Radio, Inc. et al.,No. 15-cv-00044(S.D. Cal. filed January 8,2015);Rooney v. Rite Aid

18 Corporation,No. 14-cv-01249 (S.D. Cal. filed May 20,2014);Barani v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
19 No. 12CV2999-GPC KSC,2014WL1389329 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 9,2014);Malta v. Fed. Home Loan

20
Mortgage Corp.,No. 10-CV-1290 BEN NLS,2013WL444619,(S.D. Cal. Feb. 5,2013).
21
Most pertinently to this motion,however,Judge Benitezof the Southern District of
22
California has already overseen the years-long course of Malta,2013WL444619,that was
23
litigated between 2010 and 2013. This case appears to be a direct continuation of that litigation,
24

25 albeit with different timeframes at issue. As His Honor Judge Benitezpresided over,and

27 Pfizer, Inc.,2008WL4167083,*5 (N.D. Cal. 2008)(“the ease of access to evidence can be an
important factor in deciding whether to grant a motion to transfer”)citing Decker Coal Co. v.
28 Commonwealth Edison Co.,805 F.2d 834,843(9th Cir. 1986).

8 Case No. 4:15-cv-02333-KAW
Memorandum in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue
CaseCase MDL No. 2954 Document
3:15-cv-01646-BTM-JLB 35 10-1
Document Filed Filed
06/25/20 PagePage
07/02/15 40 of1449of 17

1 approved,the final class settlement reached in that case he is presumably well-versed with the

2 legal issues and even some of the factual nuances to be expected in this litigation.11

3
2. The Southern District of California Offers the Potential for Consolidation with
4 Other Pending TCPA Class Litigation Involving Wells Fargo

5 “[T]he feasibility of consolidation is a significant factor in a transfer decision,and even the

6 pendency of an action in another district is important because of the positive effects it might have

7 in possible consolidation of discovery and convenience to witnesses and parties.” Cardoza v. T–

8 Mobile USA Inc., No. 08–5120,2009 WL723843,at *5 (N.D.Cal. Mar. 18,2009);see also Cont'l

9
Grain Co. v. The FBL–585, 364U.S. 19,26 (1960)(“To permit a situation in which two cases
10
involving precisely the same issues are simultaneously pending in different District Courts leads to
11
the wastefulness of time,energy and money that §1404(a)was designed to prevent.”).
12

13 Here,this factor strongly favors transfer to the Southern District of California. In addition

14 to Malta,2013WL444619,discussed supra, two other TCPA class actions involving different

15 Wells Fargo business lines are currently pending in the Southern District of California before

16
Judge Anello. See Franklin v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 14-cv-02349 (S.D. Cal. filed October
17
3,2014);and Prather v Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 15-cv-01296 (S.D. Cal. filed June 11,2015).
18
19

20 11
It should be noted that whereas Plaintiff cannot control what department a newly-filed case is
initially assigned to,the parties will be required to file a Notice of Related Cases with the assigned
21 judge that will,per local rule,result in the reassignment of the case to Judge Benitez. See Southern
22 proceeding onLocal
District Civil Rule 40.1(f)(“Whenever counsel has reason to believe that a pending action or
file or about to be filed is related to another pending action or proceeding on file in
23 this or any other federal or state court (whether pe nding, dis m is s e d, or oth e rw is e te rm inate d),
counsel must promptly file and serve on all known parties to each related action or proceeding a
24 notice of related case,stating the title,number and filing date of each action or proceeding
believed to be related,together with a brief statement of their relationship and the reasons why
25 assignment to a single district judge is or is not likely to effect a saving of judicial effort and other
economies. The clerkwill promptly notify the court of such filing… ”)(emphasis added);and
26 Southern District Civil Local Rule 40.1(i)(“In order to avoid unnecessary duplication of judicial
effort,all pending civil actions and proceedings,which are determined to be related to any other
27 pending civil action or proceeding pursuant to the criteria set forth in Civil Local Rule 40.1.e will
be assigned to the district and magistrate judge to whom the lowest numbered case was
28 assigned… ”)

9 Case No. 4:15-cv-02333-KAW
Memorandum in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue
CaseCase MDL No. 2954 Document
3:15-cv-01646-BTM-JLB 35 10-1
Document Filed Filed
06/25/20 PagePage
07/02/15 41 of1549of 17

1 The issues involved in this case are “precisely the same”as those involved in Malta and

2 similar (although not identical)to those involved in Franklin and Prather. Accordingly,there is a

3
meaningful potential for consolidation if the case is transferred,and the salutary benefits that go
4
along with it.
5
3. The Alternate Venues all Have a Greater Local Interest in the Controversy
6 than the Northern District of California
7 The localized interest factor requires the court to consider the current and transferee
8 forums'interests "in having localized controversies decided at home." Decker Coal,805 F.2d at

9 843. The district or districts where the events giving rise to a claim tookplace generally have the

10 greatest interest in the outcome of the controversy. See e.g. Vu, 602 F. Supp. 2d at 1157(“the

11 Court finds that if either court has a stronger interest in the controversy,it is the Central

12 District… the events giving rise to plaintiffs’claims tookplace in the Central District of

13 California”);Carolina Cas. Co. v. Data Broadcasting Corp.,158F. Supp. 2d 1044,1050 (N.D.

14 Cal. 2001)(“since more of the events leading up to this dispute occurred in the Central District,

15 the court concludes that the interest in that district is greater than the interest in this district”);

16 Hawkes v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,No. CV-10-05957-EJD,2012 WL506569,at *6 (N.D. Cal. Feb.

17 15,2012)(“The Eastern District of Virginia has a strong interest in this case because Hawkes

18 resides within the jurisdiction of the Eastern District of Virginia and because a substantial portion
19 of the transactions and events occurred within that jurisdiction.”)

20 Here,the events giving rise to this claim occurred in Iowa or Southern California. None
21 occurred in the Northern District of California. Hence,all three of the alternate forums have a

22 superior local interest in the outcome of this controversy.

23 Moreover,as the Plaintiff has alleged a nationwide class action,Iowa and California each
24 have equal claim to assuring that the rights of its citizens are justly determined.12 Yet the presence

25 of a large Wells Fargo campus within the state of Iowa strongly suggests that Iowa has the greatest

26
12
Even if California’s interest is to be preferred due to the named class representative’s residence
27 within this state,however,that does not justify or support venue in the Northern District of
California when alternate and superior venues within California exist.
28

10 Case No. 4:15-cv-02333-KAW
Memorandum in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue
CaseCase MDL No. 2954 Document
3:15-cv-01646-BTM-JLB 35 10-1
Document Filed Filed
06/25/20 PagePage
07/02/15 42 of1649of 17

1 interest in the just outcome of this dispute— weighing on the one hand the interest of consumers

2 and,on the other,the interests of a major local employer.

3 It is also significant that California has no interest in applying and interpreting its own laws

4 in this case,as Plaintiff’s claims arise from federal law. Hawkes,2012 WL506569 at *5.

5 On balance,therefore,the public interest factor supports a transfer.

6 4. Relative Court Congestion In The Respective Forums Favor Transfer to Any
of the Superior Venues
7
The relative docket congestion of the respective forums may be relevant to the Court'
s
8
decision on whether to transfer. Ctr. for Food Safety v. Vilsack,No. C–11–00831,2011 WL
9

10 996343,at *8(N.D. Cal. March 17,2011). “This factor examines whether a trial may be speedier

11 in another court because of its less crowded docket. To measure congestion,courts compare the

12 two fora'
s median time from filing to disposition or trial.” Id. (citations omitted). The speed at
13 which the case will proceed to trial favors transfer. This is generally considered the least

14
important factor in transfer analysis. See Geo. F. Martin Co. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Am.,No. C03-
15
5859 SI,2004WL1125048,at *6 (N.D. Cal. May 14,2004)(“Relative court congestion is at best,
16
a minor factor in the section 1404calculus.”(internal citations omitted)).
17

18 There is a difference between the lengths of time an action takes to proceed from the filing

19 of the complaint to the time of trial in the Northern District versus the alternative venues.

20 In the Northern District,a civil action from filing to trial takes approximately 25.9 months,
21
while in the Central District it takes 19.9 months. See Comparison of Districts Within the Ninth
22
Circuit — 12 Month Period Ending December 31,2014,available at
23
http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/na/federal-court-management-statistics/2014/12/31-3.
24
While sixfull months off the litigation calendar is substantial,litigation in the Southern
25

26 District of Iowa is even swifter. Notably,disposition time in the Southern District of Iowa is a

27 mere 9.9 months from filing to disposition. See Comparison of Districts Within the Either Circuit

11 Case No. 4:15-cv-02333-KAW
Memorandum in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue
CaseCase MDL No. 2954 Document
3:15-cv-01646-BTM-JLB 35 10-1
Document Filed Filed
06/25/20 PagePage
07/02/15 43 of1749of 17

1 –12 Month Period Ending December 31,2014,available at

2 http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/na/federal-court-management-statistics/2014/12/31-3.

3
On the other hand,disposition time in the Southern District of California is slightly greater than in
4
the Northern District of California.
5
On balance,therefore,this factor cuts in favor of a transfer to the Southern District of Iowa
6
or to the Central District of California,but cuts against transfer to the Southern District of
7
13
8 California.

9 IV. CONCLUSION
10 For the reasons stated above,the Court should grant Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue
11 and transfer this action to a more convenient forum –the Southern District of Iowa,the Central

12
District of California,or the Southern District of California.
13

14
DATED: July 2,2015 SEVERSON & WERSON
15 A Professional Corporation
16

17
By: /s/ Eric J. Troutman
18 Eric J. Troutman

19 Attorneys for Defendant
20 WELLS FARGO BANK,N.A.

27 13 Although that District’s relative experience with the subject matter should offer offsetting time
savings.
28

12 Case No. 4:15-cv-02333-KAW
Memorandum in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue
Case
Case MDL No. 2954 Document
3:15-cv-01646-BTM-JLB 35 Filed
Document 10-2 06/25/20 Page Page
Filed 07/02/15 44 of 149of 3

1 ERIC J. TROUTMAN (State Bar No. 229263)
ejt@ severson.com
2 DIVYA S. GUPTA (State Bar No. 284282)
dsg@ severson.com
3 SEVERSON & WERSON
A Professional Corporation
4 The Atrium
19100 Von Karman Avenue,Suite 700
5 Irvine,California 92612
Telephone: (949)442-7110
6 Facsimile: (949)442-7118

7 MARK D. LONERGAN (State Bar No. 143622)
SEVERSON & WERSON
8 A Professional Corporation
One Embarcadero Center,Suite 2600
9 San Francisco,California 94111
Telephone: (415)398-3344
10 Facsimile: (415)956-0439

11 Attorneys for Defendant
WELLS FARGO BANK,N.A.
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — OAKLAND DIVISION
14
RANASEEMALDONADO,individually and Case No. 4:15-cv-02333-KAW
15 on behalf of all others similarly situated, Hon. Kandis A. Westmore
Courtroom 4,3rd Floor
16 Plaintiff,
CLASS ACTION
17 vs.
DECLARATION OF JOHN HEYSE IN
18 WELLS FARGO BANK,N.A.,a South SUPPORT OF WELLS FARGO’S
Dakota association, MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
19 PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
Defendant.
20 [Filed concurrently with Notice of Motion and
Motion; Memorandum of Points and
21 Authorities; and [Proposed] Order]

22 Action Filed: May 26,2015

23 I,John Heyse hereby declare:
24 1. Iam a Call Center Planning and Analysis Manager of Wells Fargo Bank,N.A.
25 (“Wells Fargo”). Ihave worked with Wells Fargo for 12 years. My job responsibilities include

26 management and day-to-day oversight of Wells Fargo’s mortgage loan default servicing

27 business,predictive dialer and collection calls made in connection with the business. Ihave

07685.1488/4185794.1 Case No. 4:15-cv-02333-KAW
DECLARATION OFJOHN HEYSEIN SUPPORT OFWELLS FARGO’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
Case
Case MDL No. 2954 Document
3:15-cv-01646-BTM-JLB 35 Filed
Document 10-2 06/25/20 Page Page
Filed 07/02/15 45 of 249of 3

1 personal knowledge of the matters set forth below and could and would testify competently

2 thereto.

3 2. Ihave reviewed the complaint filed by plaintiff Ranasee Maldonado

4 (“Complaint”). The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff brings the action on behalf of a class of

5 individuals called by Wells Fargo using an automatic telephone dialing service or by an artificial

6 or prerecorded voice without their prior express consent in an “effort to collect on a consumer

7 mortgage account.”(Complaint,¶25).

8 3. Wells Fargo is a national banking association,chartered and with a principal place

9 of business in South Dakota. Wells Fargo does business throughout all 50 states,including

10 California. Wells Fargo operates a myriad of different business lines. Collection calls placed on

11 “consumer mortgage account[s]”are placed by Wells Fargo Home Mortgage. (“WFHM”).

12 4. Wells Fargo’s bankholding company (Wells Fargo & Co.)is headquartered in

13 San Francisco. The officers located in San Francisco are not involved in the administration of

14 Wells Fargo’s mortgage business,and they were not involved in the creation,execution or

15 supervision of the particular policies and practices at issue in this action,i.e.,the telephone calls

16 made to customers in default,and specifically,the procedures related to leaving pre-recorded

17 messages. The majority of the officers and employees involved in these operations,policies and

18 practices live and workin other parts of the country,including in the Des Moines area of Iowa.
19 5. WFHM is Wells Fargo’s residential mortgage loan origination and servicing

20 division. WFHM does not have headquarters in California. The closest call center is located in

21 Southern California,specifically San Bernardino. WFHM is primarily headquartered in Des

22 Moines,Iowa where several thousand WFHM employees workat a multi-building complex. To

23 my knowledge,the WFHM employees who workin these facilities live in Des Moines or its

24 suburbs. Importantly,there are no WFHM employees involved in Operations in the Northern

25 California San Francisco area.

26 6. The chief officers and many of the employees responsible for WFHM’s mortgage

27 business are located in these offices in Des Moines. These include the co-Presidents of WFHM,

07685.1488/4185794.1 2 Case No. 4:15-cv-02333-KAW
DECLARATION OFJOHN HEYSEIN SUPPORT OFWELLS FARGO’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
Case
Case MDL No. 2954 Document
3:15-cv-01646-BTM-JLB 35 Filed
Document 10-2 06/25/20 Page Page
Filed 07/02/15 46 of 349of 3

the Vice President - Head of Mortgage Servicing, and the Vice President - Loss

2 Control/Cl aims/Prope rty Preservatio n. The officers and directors who work in the mortgage

3 division, WFHM , and who are responsible for developing , implement ing and managing the

4 policies, practices and procedures at issue in this action are mostly located in the Des Moines

5 area. None of these persons are located in California. These WFHM officers and employees

6 would be able to testify about its loan servicing operations and its policies and procedures

7 concerning phone calls to borrowers in default, which are at issue in this action.

8 7. WFHM maintains loan servicing records stored on WFHM's mainframe computer

9 system known as the Fidelity MSP System. Computer servers for the Fidelity MSP System are

10 not located in California. Rather, they are maintained in Jacksonvill e, Florida and Little Rock,

11 Arkansas. WFHM employees responsible for operating the Fidelity System are located

12 throughout the United States, including Des Moines, Iowa. These employees are the persons

13 knowledge able about how that system is programme d, and would be able to testify about its loan

14 servicing operations and its policies and procedures concerning telephone calls to borrowers in

15 default, and specifically the procedures related to leaving pre-recorde d messages.

16 8. Moreover, any calls from WFMH emanate from call centers not located in

17 Northern California. The dialing technology is located in Minneapoli s, Minnesota or San

18 Bernardino , California. Importantly , however, Wells Fargo has been unable to locate any calls to

19 the Plaintiff's cell phone number, including from WFHM.

20 1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this

21 2:V day of June, 2015 in Chester, Pennsylvania.
22

26
27

28
07685. 1488/41 85794.1 3 4 : I 5-cv-02333-K A W
DECLARAT ION OF JOHN HEYSE IN SUPPORT O F WELLS FA RGO ' S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 1404(a)
Case
Case MDL No. 2954 Document
3:15-cv-01646-BTM-JLB 35 Filed
Document 10-3 06/25/20 Page Page
Filed 07/02/15 47 of 149of 2

1 ERIC J. TROUTMAN (State Bar No. 229263)
ejt@ severson.com
2 DIVYA S. GUPTA (State Bar No. 284282)
dsg@ severson.com
3 SEVERSON & WERSON
A Professional Corporation
4 The Atrium
19100 Von Karman Avenue,Suite 700
5 Irvine,California 92612
Telephone: (949)442-7110
6 Facsimile: (949)442-7118

7 MARK D. LONERGAN (State Bar No. 143622)
mdl@ severson.com
8 SEVERSON & WERSON
A Professional Corporation
9 One Embarcadero Center,Suite 2600
San Francisco,California 94111
10 Telephone: (415)398-3344
Facsimile: (415)956-0439
11
Attorneys for Defendant
12 WELLS FARGO BANK,N.A.

13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — OAKLAND DIVISION
15 RANASEEMALDONADO,individually and Case No. 4:15-cv-02333-KAW
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Hon. Kandis A. Westmore
16 Courtroom 4,3rd Floor
Plaintiff,
17 CLASS ACTION
vs.
18 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
WELLS FARGO BANK,N.A.,a South DEFENDANT WELLS FARGO BANK
19 Dakota association, N.A.’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 1404(a)
20 Defendant.
[Filed concurrently with
21
Date: August 20,2015
22 Time: 11:00 a.m.
Crtrm.: 4
23
Action Filed: May 26,2015
24 Trial Date: None Set

07685.1488/4185826.1 Case No. 4:15-cv-02333-KAW
[Proposed]Order Granting Wells Fargo Bank,N.A.’s Motion to Transfer Venue
Case
Case MDL No. 2954 Document
3:15-cv-01646-BTM-JLB 35 Filed
Document 10-3 06/25/20 Page Page
Filed 07/02/15 48 of 249of 2

1 The Motion of Defendants Wells Fargo Bank,N.A. for an order to transfer venue pursuant

2 to 28U.S.C. §1404(a)having been duly noticed and served on all interested parties,came on

3 regularly for hearing before this Court,on August 20,2015,at 11:00 a.m.,the Honorable Kandis

4 A. Westmore presiding.

5 All arguments,papers and evidence considered and good cause appearing,the Court

6 hereby orders that:

7
Wells Fargo’s Motion to Transfer is GRANTED. The Clerkis ordered to transfer this
8
action to (check applicable venue):
9
___the Southern District of Iowa;
10
___the Central District of California;
11
___the Southern District of California.
12

13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
DATED: ____________________ _______________________________
15 United States District Court
16

18
19

07685.1488/4185826.1 1 Case No. 4:15-cv-02333-KAW
[Proposed]Order Granting Wells Fargo Bank,N.A.’s Motion to Transfer Venue
Case
Case MDL No. 2954 Document
3:15-cv-01646-BTM-JLB 35 Filed
Document 10-4 06/25/20 Page Page
Filed 07/02/15 49 of 149of 1

1 PROOF OF SERVICE
Maldonado v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA.
2 USDC Northern District Case No. 4:15-cv-02333-KAW

5 On July 2, 2015, I served true copies of the following document(s):

6 DEFENDANT WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION TO TRANSFER PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 1404(a); MEMORANDUM
7 OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF JOHN HEYSE;
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.'S
8 MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

9 on the interested parties in this action as follows:

10 Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff
Tina Wolfson, Esq. RANASEE MALDONADO
11 Brad King, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC Telephone: (310) 474-9111
12 1016 Palm Ave. Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
West Hollywood, CA 90069 rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
13 twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
bking(a),ahdootwo lfson. com
14
Joseph J. Siprut, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff
15 Ismael T. Salam, Esq. RANASEE MALDONADO
SIPRUTPC
16 17 N. State St., Suite 1600 Telephone: (312) 236-0000
Chicago, IL 60602 Facsimile: (312) 241-1260
17 jsiprut@siprut.com
isalam@siprut.com
18

19
BY CM/ECF NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING: I electronically filed the
20 document(s) with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system. Participants in the
case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the CM/ECF system. Participants
21 in the case who are not registered CM/ECF users will be served by mail or by other means
permitted by the court rules.
22
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
23 foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on July 2, 2015, at Irvine, C a l i f o ~ ~L.-----
24

26
Tavlor P. Hankins
27

07685.1488/4304883. l Case No. 4: l 5-cv-02333-KA W
Proof of Service

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.jpml.1161957.35.0.pdf
Size: 1,116,452 bytes
SHA-256: 64452c77ac326aec7349f78aa7b4b07b4cca0b0d1c7d4343f3d9ac7700bb92ee
Our copy: gov.uscourts.jpml.1161957.35.0.pdf
Original: No public link identified.

DECLARATION OF KATHLEEN A. HERKENHOFF re: pldg. ( 33 in MDL No. 2954) Filed by… — Agent Fee Litigation (Dkt. 35)

Summary

Full text

File and source

Related records