govinfo:USCOURTS-cand-5_26-cv-01504-0

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
LUIS SANTIAGO SALINAS, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
 
KEEFE COMMISSARY NETWORK, LLC, 
Defendant. 
 

 
 
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 
TRANSFER 
Re: ECF Nos. 6, 29, 36 
 
 
Before the Court is Defendant Keefe Commissary Network, LLC’s motion to transfer this 
case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri or, in the alternative, dismiss or 
for more definite statement. Mot. to Transfer, ECF No. 6-1. As explained further below, and 
having taken the parties’ briefings under submission, Defendant’s motion to transfer is 
GRANTED IN PART because the Eastern District of Missouri is the proper venue for this action. 
The remainder of Defendant’s motion is DENIED without prejudice. This Order assumes the 
reader is familiar with the facts, applicable legal standard, and arguments made by the parties. 
A. Procedural History 
Defendant removed this case to federal court on February 20, 2026. See Notice of 
Removal, ECF No. 1. On February 27, 2026, Defendant brought this motion to transfer the action 
to the Eastern District of Missouri under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Mot. to Transfer. In the alternative, 
Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) or for more definite 
statement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). Id. at 6-10. On March 6, 2026, Plaintiff Luis Salinas filed a 
response in opposition to the motion to transfer, Opp., ECF No. 11, to which Defendant filed a 
reply, ECF No. 17, on March 13, 2026. On June 5, 2026, Defendant filed an amended motion to 
dismiss, ECF No. 36, asserting a supplemental ground for dismissal, and on June 8, 2026, Plaintiff 

 
2 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
filed an opposition thereto, ECF No. 38. Defendant filed a reply in support of the amended 
motion on June 10, 2026. ECF No. 39. 
B. Legal Standard 
“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 or to 
any district or division to which all parties have consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The court may 
consider the following factors when determining whether transfer would promote the convenience 
of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice: 
 
(1) plaintiff[’s] choice of forum, (2) convenience of the parties, 
(3) convenience of the witnesses, (4) ease of access to the evidence, 
(5) familiarity of each forum with the applicable law, (6) feasibility 
of consolidation with other claims, (7) any local interest in the 
controversy, and (8) the relative court congestion an d time of trial in 
each forum. 
 
Vu v. Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc., 602 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1156 (N.D. Cal. 2009). “The burden is 
on the party seeking transfer to show that when these factors are applied, the balance of 
convenience clearly favors transfer.” Alul v. Am. Honda Motor Co., No. 16-cv-04384-JST, 2016 
WL 7116934, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2016) (citing Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. 
Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979)). The case should not be transferred if the result is 
merely to shift the inconvenience from one party to another. See Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 
612, 645-46 (1964) (“Section 1404(a) provides for transfer to a more convenient forum, not to a 
forum likely to prove equally convenient or inconvenient.”); see also Decker Coal Co. v. 
Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). 
C. Whether the Eastern District of Missouri is the Proper Venue 
As an initial matter, the Court finds that this action could have been brought in the Eastern 
District of Missouri. As Defendant established in its notice of removal, there is federal diversity 
jurisdiction because the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000.00, and the parties are 
diverse as Plaintiff is a citizen of California, and Defendant is a citizen of Missouri with its office 
located in St. Louis, Missouri. See Lamartina Decl., ECF No. 1-2; Lynchard Decl., ECF No. 1-3; 

 
3 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
Hunter Decl., ECF No. 1-4; Hunter Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 6-2 (“Hunter Second Decl.”). Next, venue 
is proper in “a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the 
State in which the district is located[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). Because Defendant is a Missouri 
citizen located in St. Louis, venue is proper in the Eastern District of Missouri under 
Section 1391(b)(1). Finally, the fact that Plaintiff previously brought an employment action 
against Defendant in the Eastern District of Missouri further supports that the Eastern District of 
Missouri is a proper venue.1 See Missouri Compl., ECF No. 6-3, Ex. 1. The action, therefore, 
could have been brought in the Eastern District of Missouri. 
D. Whether Transfer is in the Interest of Justice 
Next, the Court considers whether transfer is in the interest of justice. 
The first factor (Plaintiff’s choice of forum) weighs slightly against transfer. “While 
substantial consideration is generally given to a plaintiff’s choice of forum, the degree of 
deference is substantially diminished . . . ‘[i]f the operative facts have not occurred within the 
forum and the forum has no interest in the parties or subject matter[.]’” Park v. Dole Fresh 
Vegetables, Inc., 964 F. Supp. 2d 1088, 1094 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (quoting Lou v. Belzberg, 834 
F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987)). Ordinarily, even if the operative facts occurred in another venue, 
Plaintiff’s choice of venue is still considered when Plaintiff resides within the District; however, 
“[w]here a plaintiff does not reside in the forum, the Court may afford plaintiff’s choice 
considerably less weight.” Vu, 602 F. Supp. 2d at 1156. 
Here, the operative facts occurred exclusively in Missouri, not California. See Compl. 
 
1 Defendant’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED. Defendant requests judicial notice of the 
prior matter between the parties in the Eastern District of Missouri, Salinas v. TKC Holdings, Inc., 
No. 4:20-cv-01846 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 18, 2020). ECF No. 6-3, Exs. 1-3. The request pertains to the 
matter’s complaint, ECF No. 6-3, Ex. 1 (“Missouri Compl.”); the order granting Plaintiff’s motion 
to voluntarily dismiss dated April 28, 2022, ECF No. 6-3, Ex. 2 (“Missouri Order Granting 
Dismissal”); and a judgment order of dismissal without prejudice entered on April 28, 2022, ECF 
No. 6-3, Ex. 3 (“Missouri Judgment”). A court “may take judicial notice of court filings” in other 
cases “[t]o determine what issues were actually litigated.” Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, 
Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006). However, “a court may not take judicial notice of 
proceedings or records in another cause so as to supply, without formal introduction of evidence, 
facts essential to support a contention in a cause then before it.” M/V Am. Queen v. San Diego 
Marine Const. Corp., 708 F.2d 1483, 1491 (9th Cir. 1983). 

 
4 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
at 9-10, ECF No. 1-1; Hunter Second Decl. ¶¶ 5, 7-8. Though Plaintiff does not specify the nature 
of the alleged discriminatory activity on September 24, 2021, the parties have acknowledged that 
on that date, they were actively litigating a dispute in the Eastern District of Missouri. See Compl. 
at 9; Mot. to Transfer at 3-4; Opp. at 3-6. The complaint does not refer to any events in the 
Northern District of California. Moreover, Plaintiff states that he resides in Tecate, California, 
which is in the Southern District of California. See Compl. at 5, 7-9, 11. Consequently, Plaintiff’s 
choice of the Northern District of California as the venue for this action is given less weight 
because this District is neither where the events at issue occurred nor where Plaintiff resides. 
Because this District was still technically Plaintiff’s choice of venue, this factor tilts slightly 
against transfer, but only minimally. 
The second factor (convenience of the parties) weighs in favor of transfer. Although 
Plaintiff is a citizen of California, he resides in the Southern District of California. See Compl. 
at 5, 7-9, 11. It does not appear that the Northern District of California is convenient to him, as 
noted in his recent declaration papers. See, e.g., Opp. at 6 (“Plaintiff’s occupation requires him to 
be away from his residence for extended periods, often on short notice, making travel to San Jose 
for a court appearance logistically difficult and economically burdensome.”). Indeed, Plaintiff 
already requested to appear remotely “for all proceedings” in this matter, and in support of that 
motion, claimed that “litigating in California is burdensome.” ECF No. 29 at 2. Because the 
Court cannot find that the Eastern District of Missouri is actually less convenient for Plaintiff – 
whereas it is certainly more convenient for Defendant – the second factor favors transfer. 
Factors three (convenience of the witnesses), and four (ease of access to the evidence) 
weigh strongly in favor of transfer. It appears that the necessary witnesses and evidence must 
have a locus in Missouri for any employment claims. Hunter Second Decl. ¶¶ 5, 7-8. Missouri is 
where Plaintiff was employed by Defendant in 2019 and litigated against Defendant in the 2020 
action. Id.; see also Compl. at 9-10; Missouri Compl. 
The fifth factor (familiarity of each forum with the applicable law) weighs against transfer. 
“Although it is true that federal courts are equipped and competent to apply California law, ‘[a] 
California district court is more familiar with California law than district courts in other states.’” 

 
5 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
Fellers v. C.W. Martin L. Off., PLLC, No. 26-CV-900-GPC-JLB, 2026 WL 1214671, at *14 (S.D. 
Cal. May 1, 2026) (quoting In re Ferrero Litig., 768 F. Supp. 2d 1074, 1081 (S.D. Cal. 2011)). 
Where, like here, claims are brought under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act and 
authorized via a right to sue letter issued by the California Civil Rights Department, a federal court 
located in California would have more familiarity with the same. 
The sixth factor (feasibility of consolidation with other claims) is likely neutral because 
there are no pending actions in either venue. Though the Eastern District of Missouri is the venue 
of the prior dispute between the parties, see Missouri Compl., there is no active litigation pending 
in Missouri. See Missouri Judgment. 
The seventh factor (local interest in the controversy) also weighs in favor of transfer. 
Plaintiff and Defendant have both referenced only events that occurred in Missouri, and neither 
alleges that any acts or events occurred in California. Compl. at 9-10; Mot. to Transfer at 4-5. 
Thus, the Eastern District of Missouri has a “stronger [interest] because the events at issue took 
place there.” Vu, 602 F. Supp. 2d at 1157. 
Finally, there is no evidence before the Court concerning the eighth factor (relative 
congestion in each court), thus this factor is neutral. 
Overall, the balance of the factors favor transfer because four of the factors (two, three, 
four, and seven) weigh in favor of transfer, and two of the factors (six and eight) are neutral, while 
only two of the factors (one and five) weigh against transfer, but neither strongly enough to offset 
the others. 
*** 
 

 
6 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to transfer is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN 
PART. The Court TRANSFERS Plaintiff’s claims to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern 
District of Missouri. The Court addresses neither Defendant’s alternative motion to dismiss or for 
more definitive statement, ECF No. 6, nor Defendant’s amended motion to dismiss, ECF No. 36, 
which are TERMINATED AS MOOT without prejudice to refiling in the Eastern District of 
Missouri. Plaintiff’s motion to appear remotely for all proceedings, ECF No. 29, is similarly 
TERMINATED AS MOOT without prejudice. The Clerk is instructed to transfer and close the 
case. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated: June 11, 2026 
 
 
Eumi K. Lee 
United States District Judge 

Passage view · GavelSight