1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 KRISTI HASKINS, LAURA SCULLY, Case No.: 17-CV-1960-CAB-BLM AND DONALD J. JANAK, individually 6 and as representatives of a class of ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 7 similarly situated persons in the General TRANSFER CASE TO THE Electric Retirement Savings Plan and the DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 8 General Electric Savings and Security 9 Program,

10 Plaintiff,

11 v. [Doc. No. 24] 12 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; GENERAL ELECTRIC RETIREMENT 13 SAVINGS PLAN TRUSTEES, 14 Defendant. 15 16 17 On September 26, 2017, Plaintiffs filed this putative class action under the Employee 18 Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) alleging breaches of fiduciary duties 19 and mismanagement of Defendant General Electric Company’s 401(k) plan. Within the 20 next two months, three virtually identical putative class actions were filed in the District of 21 Massachusetts, where GE is headquartered. On December 12, 2017, Judge Denise Casper 22 entered an order granting a stipulation by the parties in the three Massachusetts cases to 23 consolidate them into one action captioned In re GE ERISA Litigation, Case No. 1:17-CV- 24 12123-DJC (the “Consolidated Action”). On January 12, 2018, a consolidated amended 25 complaint was filed in the Consolidated Action. 26 Meanwhile, Defendants in the instant case move to transfer venue to Massachusetts, 27 while the named Plaintiffs here have moved to intervene in the Consolidated Action 28 seeking to have the Consolidated Action transferred to this district or stayed. All parties 1 to the Consolidated Action oppose Plaintiffs’ motion, and Plaintiffs oppose Defendants 2 motion to transfer in this case. Defendants’ motion to transfer venue in this case is fully 3 briefed, and the Court deems it suitable for submission without oral argument. The motion 4 is granted. 5 “For the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district 6 court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been 7 brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.”

1404(a). The factors relevant to the determination of whether transfer is appropriate under 9 Section 1404(a) include, without limitation: 10 (1) the location where the relevant agreements were negotiated and executed, (2) the state that is most familiar with the governing law, (3) the plaintiff's 11 choice of forum, (4) the respective parties’ contacts with the forum, (5) the 12 contacts relating to the plaintiff's cause of action in the chosen forum, (6) the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums, (7) the availability of 13 compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses, 14 and (8) the ease of access to sources of proof. 15 Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc.,

, 498–99 (9th Cir. 2000). All of these factors 16 are either neutral or favor transfer to Massachusetts. The alleged wrongdoing occurred 17 primarily in Massachusetts or Connecticut. Because federal law applies, this factor is 18 neutral. Because this dispute involves a putative nationwide class, the fact that three of the 19 individual members of the class prefer to litigate here does not warrant much weight 20 considering that the vast majority of the class does not reside here, and a majority of the 21 individuals seeking to be named class members prefer to litigate this dispute in 22 Massachusetts. The only contact relating to this forum is that two of the named plaintiffs 23 in this case and some of the putative class reside here. Meanwhile, many of the defendants 24 and relevant witnesses as well as many of the putative class members reside in or near 25 Massachusetts. Thus, while some of the operative facts may have occurred in this district, 26 significantly more of the operative facts occurred and originated in or near Massachusetts. 27 Further, the costs of litigating and the availability of compulsory process here versus 28 Massachusetts are at best neutral and more likely favor Massachusetts considering that 1 more witnesses reside there. Likewise, the ease of access to sources of proof is at best 2 ||neutral but likely favors Massachusetts considering that GE is headquartered there. 3 Plaintiffs quibble with Defendants’ support for their arguments that the more 4 || appropriate venue for this case is Massachusetts, but Plaintiffs provide little support for the 5 |/idea that San Diego would be a better or even equal venue. Ultimately, Plaintiffs only 6 || argument for denying Defendant motion to transfer venue is that Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit 7 || before the lawsuits that were joined into the Consolidated Action. While this first-to-file 8 principle may justify deference to the forum of the first filed case when a plaintiff and 9 || defendant each file what is effectively the same lawsuit in different forums, the principle 10 little relevance here. All four lawsuits were filed on behalf of what is essentially the 11 ||same plaintiff class. That three members of the class filed first here warrants little 12 || deference when other members of the same class, as well as Defendants, prefer to litigate 13 || this dispute in Massachusetts. Indeed, considering the number of individuals interested in 14 ||representing the class in Massachusetts, the Court is not persuaded how the named 15 || plaintiffs here will suffer any burden.’ Accordingly, the fact that this lawsuit was filed first 16 not overcome the many reasons why Massachusetts is the more appropriate forum. 17 In sum, the convenience of the parties, the convenience of the witnesses, the interests 18 || of justice, and judicial efficiency all overwhelmingly favor litigating this dispute between 19 |/a nationwide class and Defendants in Massachusetts instead of San Diego. Therefore, 20 || Defendants’ motion to transfer venue is GRANTED, and this case is TRANSFERRED 21 the District of Massachusetts. It is SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: February 2, 2018 ©; g 23 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28 Moreover, the existence of other willing class members who could represent the class in Massachusetts ostensibly renders Plaintiffs’ participation superfluous.