The opinion of the court was delivered by: Barry M. Kurren United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
Before the Court is Defendant Bank of America, N.A.'s Motion to Transfer Venue (Doc. 28). The Court heard this Motion on November 7, 2012. After careful consideration of the Motion, the supporting and opposing memoranda, and the arguments of counsel, Defendant's Motion is GRANTED. The Court ORDERS that this action be transferred to the Western District of Washington.
Plaintiff Brenda Aspera was hired by Defendant in November 2008 as a mortgage loan officer. (First Amended Complaint ("FAC") ¶3.) Plaintiff was based at Defendant's branch in Bellevue, Washington. (Montgomery Decl'n ¶ 3.)
Throughout 2009, Debra Montgomery supervised Plaintiff. (Id.) In August 2009, Plaintiff's son, who was living in Hawaii, was involved in an accident and required hospitalization. (Id. ¶ 4.) Defendant granted Plaintiff's request to work in Hawaii while her son recuperated. (Id.)
While working remotely in Hawaii, Plaintiff continued to service her clients in Washington, was not required to generate any business in Hawaii, and continued to report to Montgomery in Bellevue, Washington. (Id. ¶¶ 5-6.)
In October 2009, Plaintiff informed Montgomery that she was pregnant. (FAC ¶ 12.) Later in November, Plaintiff notified Montgomery that she was disabled due to a high-risk pregnancy. (Id. ¶ 15.)
On December 2, 2009, Montgomery was contacted by Timothy Whitesitt, Defendant's VP & Senior Investigator. (Montgomery Decl'n ¶ 8.) Whitesitt notified Montgomery of Plaintiff's "delinquent corporate credit card statements." (Id.) Both Montgomery and Whitesitt spoke with Plaintiff that day via conference call, and Plaintiff admitted that she did use her company credit card for personal purchases and that she "did reimburse Defendant Bank for all the purchases she made." (FAC ¶ 19.) In a second telephone conference call that same day with Montgomery and Whitesitt, Plaintiff was informed that "she was terminated due to 'violation of company policy,' that is, use of the company credit card for personal purchases." (Id. ¶ 20.)
After filing charges of discrimination based on sex discrimination with the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff filed this action in state court on January 31, 2012. (FAC ¶¶ 5-6.) Defendant removed the case to this Court on April 12, 2012. (Notice of Removal.) Defendant subsequently filed the present Motion to Transfer Venue to the Western District of Washington.
Defendant argues that "this Court should transfer venue in this action to the Western District of Washington pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for considerations of convenience and justice." (Motion at 5.)
Section 1404(a) provides: "For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The purpose of § 1404(a) is to "prevent the waste of time, energy, and money and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against any unnecessary inconvenience and expense." Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964) (quotations omitted). "A decision to transfer lies within the broad discretion of the district court, and must be determined on an individualized basis." Abordo v. Kimoto, No. Civ. 12-00651 JMS, 2012 WL 6554388, at *1 (D. Haw. Dec. 14, 2012) (citing Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000)).
Courts deciding a motion to transfer venue under § 1404(a) weigh multiple factors in determining whether transfer is appropriate. Jones, 211 F.3d at 498. For example, courts may consider (1) the plaintiff's choice of forum, (2) contacts between the chosen forum and plaintiff's cause of action, (3) convenience of the parties and witnesses, (4) ease of access to the evidence, (5) differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums, (6) familiarity of each forum with the applicable law, (7) relative court congestion, and (8) local interest in the controversy. Abordo, 2012 WL 6554388, at *2.
As an initial matter, the Court notes that there is no dispute that the Western District of Washington is a "district or division where [this action] might have been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Therefore, this Court turns to the applicable factors mentioned ...