Opinion
Case No.: 2:22-cv-00539-MHH
2022-06-30
James CLICK, Plaintiff, v. MERCEDES-BENZ US INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant.
Victoria L. Dye, Morgan and Morgan, PLLC, Birmingham, AL, Matthew Scott Parmet, Pro Hac Vice, Parmet PC, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff.
Victoria L. Dye, Morgan and Morgan, PLLC, Birmingham, AL, Matthew Scott Parmet, Pro Hac Vice, Parmet PC, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff James Click filed this FLSA action against defendant Mercedes-Benz US International, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division. MBUSI has asked the Court to transfer this action to the Western Division of this Court. (Doc. 13). 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) states:
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). To determine "whether to grant a motion to transfer, the court employs a two-step analysis." Cook v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc. , 7:19-cv-01087-LSC, 2020 WL 13157798, at *1 (N.D. Ala. Apr. 24, 2020). "The court first analyzes whether the action could have been brought in the proposed transferee district or division" and then "considers whether the convenience of the parties and the interests of justice would be furthered by the action's transfer." Cook , 2020 WL 13157798, at *1 (internal citations omitted). "[T]he party seeking transfer of venue typically bears the burden of showing that a transfer to the suggested forum is more convenient or is in the interest of justice." Cook , 2020 WL 13157798, at *1. As for step one, Mr. Click could have brought this action in the Western Division. Congress has repealed the federal statute governing divisional venue, 28 U.S.C. 1393, and "the Northern District of Alabama has not adopted local rules addressing divisional venue." Cook , 2020 WL 13157798, at *2. "[B]y filing his complaint in the [Southern] Division, [Mr. Click] has clearly indicated his choice of divisional forum. Accordingly, [Mr. Click's] choice of forum is entitled to substantial deference and should only be disturbed if plainly outweighed by other factors." Cook , 2020 WL 13157798, at *2 (citing Robinson v. Giarmarco & Bill, P.C. , 74 F.3d 253, 260 (11th Cir. 1996) ) (internal citation omitted). Turning to the second step in the analysis, the Eleventh Circuit in Manuel v. Convergys Corp. , 430 F.3d 1132 (11th Cir. 2005), outlined several factors district courts may examine when evaluating § 1404(a) motions to transfer:
During the telephone conference on June 28, 2022, counsel for MBUSI argued that Mr. Click's choice of forum is not entitled to deference. MBUSI did not advance this argument in its brief in support of its motion to transfer, but the company did cite Taylor v. Faurecia Automotive Seating, Inc. , No. 14-AR-0277-S, 2014 WL 1577021 (N.D. Ala. Apr. 18, 2014), as a case in which the Northern District of Alabama "grant[ed] [a] motion to transfer venue from the Southern Division to the Western Division under similar facts." (Doc. 13, p. 4 n.2). The following passage appears in Taylor :
This leaves the court with the obligation to consider [the plaintiff's] only remaining argument, namely, the presumption in favor of the forum selected by plaintiff. While it is true that as a general rule a plaintiff's choice of forum is given a significant weight, that deference to plaintiff's choice can be over-weighted by other factors if they weigh heavily in favor of a transfer. Professor Moore's treatise describes a fact that in deciding venue significantly subtracts from [the plaintiff's] argument. Professor Moore says: "[T]he plaintiff's choice of forum is accorded less weight if [the choice forum] is not the plaintiff's residence." 2 Moore's Federal Practice , § 111. 13[1][c] [ii] (Matthew Bender 3d Ed.). (emphasis added). In the instant case, [the plaintiff] is neither a resident of the Southern Division, nor of the Western Division. She is a resident of the Southern District in Hale County, next door to the Western Division of the Northern District. It is clear that it will be more physically convenient for plaintiff and for defendant to try this case in Tuscaloosa than in Birmingham. Plaintiff's choice of the Southern Division as a forum, while not insignificant, is materially diminished as a factor because of her personal residence. In this court's balancing of all factors, her choice is overridden by the combination of the other factors.
Taylor , 2014 WL 1577021, at *4 (emphasis in Taylor ).
Here, Mr. Click is "a resident of Shelby County, Alabama." (Doc. 17, p. 3, ¶ 13). Shelby County is within the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division. See http://alnd.uscourts.gov/sites/alnd/files/Alabama_co_lines_withdivisions.jpg (last visited June 28, 2022).
Moreover, during the telephone conference on June 28, 2022, counsel for MBUSI argued that Mr. Click's choice of forum should not be given deference in a collective action. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia spoke to this issue in Hunt v. Thermal Industries, Inc. , 1:09-cv-1445-WSD, 2009 WL 10669951 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 24, 2009) :
Defendant claims that Plaintiff's choice of forum as the potential class representative should be "disregarded" because Plaintiff decided to proceed on a collective basis. Def.’s Mot. to Transfer, 11. Plaintiff argues that the deference usually afforded to a plaintiff's choice of forum should not be altered because this is a collective case. The Eleventh Circuit does not appear to have addressed this issue, but even if less deference is given in a collective action, this is not a situation where the forum choice of Plaintiff "might well inconvenience the vast majority of potential plaintiffs" as Defendant seems to suggest.
Hunt , 2009 WL 10669951, at *2. Here, the record does not indicate where potential opt-ins may be located. Therefore, the Court cannot predict how potential opt-in plaintiffs may impact the analysis of Mr. Click's forum choice.
Thus, the Court gives deference to Mr. Click's choice of forum. Cook v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc. , 7:19-cv-01087-LSC, 2020 WL 13157798, at *1 (N.D. Ala. Apr. 24, 2020).
(1) the convenience of the witnesses; (2) the location of relevant documents and the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (3) the convenience of the parties; (4) the locus of operative facts; (5) the availability of process to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses; (6) the relative means of the parties; (7) a forum's familiarity with the governing law; (8) the weight accorded a plaintiff's choice of forum; and (9) trial efficiency and the interest of justice, based on the totality of the circumstances.
Manuel , 430 F.3d at 1135 n.1. For the reasons discussed below, "other considerations [do not] clearly outweigh [Mr. Click's] choice of divisional forum such that the convenience of the parties and the interests of justice would be furthered by transferring this action to the [Western] Division" of the Northern District of Alabama. Cook , 2020 WL 13157798, at *2
Convenience of the Witnesses
Employees of MBUSI's Vance, Alabama facility likely will be witnesses in this FLSA action. Should this case proceed to trial, employees who live in Vance, Alabama may have to travel approximately 27 minutes to reach the federal courthouse in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, see Driving Directions from Vance, Alabama to 2005 University Boulevard, Tuscaloosa, AL 35401, GOOGLE MAPS , http://maps.google.com (follow "Directions" hyperlink; then search starting point field for Vance, Alabama: and search destination field for "2005 University Boulevard, Tuscaloosa, AL) (last visited June 28, 2022); and approximately 38 minutes to reach the federal courthouse in Birmingham, Alabama, see Driving Directions from Vance, Alabama to Hugo Black Courthouse, Birmingham, AL 35401, GOOGLE MAPS , http://maps.google.com (follow "Directions" hyperlink; then search starting point field for Vance, Alabama: and search destination field for "Hugo Black Courthouse, Birmingham, AL) (last visited June 28, 2022). Thus, "regardless of whether this action proceeds in the Western Division or the Southern Division, it is likely that some witnesses will have to travel," and "the possibility of such a nominal decrease in travel time [– here, approximately 11 minutes –] for some of the witnesses is insufficient to ‘clearly outweigh’ the deference to [Mr. Click's] chosen forum." Cook , 2020 WL 13157798, at *2. Moreover, during the telephone conference on June 28, 2022, counsel for MBUSI acknowledged that potential witnesses who work in Vance, Alabama do not necessarily live in Vance, Alabama, so Vance is not necessarily a starting point for travel for trial. Thus, the Court cannot say whether potential trial witnesses would be inconvenienced at all.
The parties can schedule employee depositions in Birmingham, Vance, or Tuscaloosa to accommodate witnesses.
Location of Relevant Documents and the Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof
Jeff Burbank, HR Manager for MBUSI, asserts that "Mr. Click's employment and payroll records are maintained at MBUSI's Vance, Alabama facility as are the payroll and personnel records of other MBUSI production team members. (Doc. 13-1, p. 2, ¶ 2). Most payroll and personnel records likely are stored electronically, eliminating any possible burden in transporting these records. To the extent that some payroll and personnel records are stored only in paper copy – possibly due to the Kronos hack – transporting these records an extra 11 minutes is not a significant burden.
Convenience of the Parties
Mr. Click resides in Shelby County, Alabama, (Doc. 17, p. 3, ¶ 13), approximately 37 minutes from the federal courthouse in Birmingham, Alabama. See Driving Directions from Shelby County, Alabama to Hugo Black Courthouse, Birmingham, AL 35401, GOOGLE MAPS , http://maps.google.com (follow "Directions" hyperlink; then search starting point field for Shelby County, Alabama: and search destination field for "Hugo Black Courthouse, Birmingham, AL) (last visited June 28, 2022). As noted above, MBUSI officials residing in Vance, Alabama would have to travel an extra 11 minutes to reach the federal courthouse in Birmingham, Alabama rather than the federal courthouse in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Local counsel for Mr. Click works in Birmingham, Alabama. Out-of-state counsel for Mr. Click works in Houston, Texas. The closest commercial airport to Tuscaloosa, Alabama is in Birmingham, Alabama. And as the Court in Cook noted, the "distance between the Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport and the federal courthouse in Tuscaloosa" is "sixty-three-mile[s]" "as compared to the five-mile distance between the same airport and the federal courthouse in Birmingham." Cook , 2020 WL 13157798, at *3. Finally, counsel for MBUSI works in Birmingham, Alabama. Thus, on balance, the Southern Division appears more convenient for the parties than the Western Division.
Conversely, Mr. Click would have to travel approximately one hour and thirteen minutes to reach the federal courthouse in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. See Driving Directions from Vance, Alabama to 2005 University Boulevard, Tuscaloosa, AL 35401, Google Maps , http://maps.google.com (follow "Directions" hyperlink; then search starting point field for Vance, Alabama: and search destination field for "2005 University Boulevard, Tuscaloosa, AL) (last visited June 28, 2022)
Locus of Operative Facts
This "factor clearly has more weight when analyzing a transfer of district than when considering a change of divisional venue." Allen v. Dolgencorp, Inc. , 2008 WL 11380102, at *2 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 19, 2008). Thus, this factor does not impact the Court's analysis.
Availability of Process to Compel the Attendance of Unwilling Witnesses
MBUSI has not offered argument on this factor. Thus, this factor does not impact the Court's analysis.
Relative Means of the Parties
Mr. Click is an individual and MBUSI is a corporate entity. "[C]orporate entities generally possess greater means to litigate." Cook , 2020 WL 13157798, at *3. Thus, this factor does not favor MBUSI's motion to transfer.
Forum's Familiarity with the Governing Law
"The forum's familiarity with the governing law does not carry weight in the Court's analysis, as the law to be applied in this case does not differ regardless of whether this matter proceeds in the Western Division or the Southern Division of the Northern District of Alabama." Cook , 2020 WL 13157798, at *3.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, "no factor or combination of factors weighs so heavily in favor of transfer as to ‘clearly outweigh’ the deference appropriately afforded to [Mr. Click's] choice." Cook , 2020 WL 13157798, at *4. Thus, the Court denies MBUSI's motion to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Western Division.
DONE and ORDERED this June 30, 2022.