Opinion
Civil No. 00-1249-JO (LEAD)
April 16, 2001
Michael D. Callahan CALLAHAN STEVENS Keizer, OR., Attorney for Plaintiff.
Bruce H. Henderson Thomas W. Scroggins TANNER GUINN Tuscaloosa, AL.
Laura T. Z. Montgomery William H. Martin GLEAVES SWEARINGEN LARSEN POTTER SCOTT SMITH Eugene, OR., Attorneys for Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs bring this action against their former employer, defendants Erin Truckways Limited ("ETL") and Digby Truck Line, Inc. ("DTL"; collectively, "defendants"), alleging claims for unlawful termination under Oregon state law. The court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
The case is before me on defendants' motion for change of venue (# 14). After considering the parties' arguments, defendants' motion is DENIED.
FACTS
This case arises out of defendants' handling of a workers' compensation claim filed by plaintiffs, their former employees, after plaintiffs were injured in a trucking accident while performing deliveries for defendants. ETL is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Tennessee, and DTL is the business name of ETL. Plaintiffs Steven C. Thrapp and Carla M. Thrapp are a married couple who were employed as truck drivers to make deliveries for defendants. Plaintiffs state that they applied for work with Pacific Western Transportation, Inc. ("Pac West"), an Oregon company with its principal office in Troutdale, Oregon. However, when they accepted employment, plaintiffs signed a "Notice to all Driver Applicants for Employment," which stated that they were accepting employment with "Digby," which was located in Lavergne, Tennessee, and that worker's compensation claims would be "determined exclusively as a Tennessee based employee."
Plaintiffs Steven C. Thrapp and Carla M. Thrapp initially filed separate actions in this court, numbered as case numbers 00-1249-JO and 00-1250-JO. Finding that the actions arose out of the same set of facts and asserted identical claims, the court ordered consolidation of these actions by order dated November 22, 2000.
Specifically, the applicable provision states: "I consent to, understand, and agree that if I am hired as an employee by Digby that I will be a Tennessee employee paid by Digby in Lavergne, Tennessee, and will receive all my dispatches and all operating instructions from Digby in Lavergne, and will be covered by workman's compensation in the State of Tennessee. . . . I acknowledge, agree and consent to being covered exclusively for workman's compensation insurance as a Tennessee based employee. If injured while working, and I loose [sic] time from work, that any workman's compensation benefits that I might receive will be determined exclusively as a Tennessee based employee." Defendants' Motion for Change of Venue pp. 3-4.
Plaintiffs were hired on or about October 7, 1998. Their job required them to deliver truckloads of goods from Portland, Oregon, to out-of-state locations, and then return to the Pac West office in Troutdale, Oregon, with truckloads from out of state. On December 4, 1999, while performing a delivery for defendants in California, plaintiffs were injured in a motor vehicle accident. They state that they informed their Pac West dispatcher of the accident and resulting injuries that day, and immediately thereafter filed for workers' compensation benefits in Oregon. According to plaintiffs, they received medical authorization releasing them from work until December 31, 1999. Plaintiffs claim that defendants received these medical releases on December 20, 1999, and for this reason terminated plaintiffs on December 21, 1999.
DISCUSSION
Defendants have filed the instant motion for change of venue, claiming that the relevant factors support transferring this action to the Middle District of Tennessee. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) gives a district court discretion "to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an `individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.'" The court looks to multiple factors in determining whether transfer is appropriate in a particular case, including (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 choice of forum, (4) the respective parties' contacts with the forum, (5) the 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 compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses, and (8) the ease of access to sources of proof. In cases involving a forum selection clause, such a clause should be a "significant factor" in the court's analysis. Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000).
Applying these factors to the facts of this case, I conclude that venue is proper in the District of Oregon. At the outset, it is undisputed that this action was brought by plaintiffs in Oregon and their claims are based on Oregon law. These factors obviously weigh heavily in favor of this forum. Furthermore, all the relevant documents in this case were negotiated and signed by plaintiffs in Oregon. Curiously, defendants contend that this factor supports venue in Tennessee, because the contract provision signed by plaintiffs stated that they were being employed by a Tennessee corporation. This argument misses the point. Plaintiffs applied for a job in Oregon, were hired in Oregon, signed all employment documents in Oregon and ultimately applied for workers' compensation in Oregon. Defendants voluntarily developed a relationship with an Oregon company, Pac West, and it was through this relationship that they employed plaintiffs.
Along the same lines, the fourth factor, which directs the court to consider the parties' connections with the forum, also supports the Oregon forum. The parties' relationship arose from their common connection with the State of Oregon. Plaintiffs are Oregon citizens and applied for work in Troutdale, Oregon. They performed all work from the Pac West office in Troutdale, Oregon, or Portland, Oregon, delivering to out-of-state locations and then returning to the Troutdale location. Aside from their employment with a Tennessee company, there is no evidence that plaintiffs have any connection to the State of Tennessee. Furthermore, defendants have a business relationship with Pac West, pursuant to which Pac West apparently coordinates deliveries for defendants in the Northwest region. Plaintiffs were employed by defendants through Pac West. Thus, both parties have significant connections to this forum, especially with respect to the facts of this case.
Admittedly, there are documents and as many as four witnesses located in Tennessee that must be transported to Oregon for trial. However, this does not warrant a contrary conclusion. Plaintiffs have indicated that they intend to call several witnesses for whom the Oregon forum would be much more convenient. Plaintiffs will call plaintiff Carla Thrapp's sister and mother, both of whom have information regarding plaintiffs' conduct after the accident. They are located in California. Plaintiffs also intend to call the claims examiner for defendants' workers' compensation insurance carrier and their treating physician, both of whom are located in Oregon. In addition, they may call witnesses associated with Pac West, who will testify as to whether plaintiffs were actually employed by DTL, a fact that is apparently disputed by defendants. Finally, plaintiffs are key witnesses and are located in Oregon as well.
Defendants rely heavily on the provision in their employment contract in which plaintiff acknowledged they were being employed by a Tennessee company. In general, a forum selection clause is "presumptively valid and should not be set aside unless the party challenging the clause `clearly show[s] that enforcement would be unreasonable and unjust, or that the clause was invalid for such reasons as fraud or overreaching.'" Jones, 211 F.3d at 497 (quoting M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 15 (1972)). Where forum selection clauses are reasonable, fair, and clearly written, they are generally enforceable.
In this case, however, the cited provision does not constitute a forum selection clause. Nothing in the provision informs plaintiffs that they would be required to bring any claims in the State of Tennessee, or even that the law of Tennessee would apply to any such claims. The provision merely informs plaintiffs that they are being employed by a Tennessee company and that workers' compensation claims "will be covered by workman's compensation in the State of Tennessee." Defendant's Motion at 4. There is no statement informing plaintiffs that they were required to litigate disputes in Tennessee, and I will not read one into it. Defendants are free to draft such a provision, and enforce it to the extent that it is clear and fair, but that is not what they have done here.
It is notable that all benefits sought thus far by plaintiffs have been sought in the State of Oregon.
Based on the facts reviewed here, I conclude that Oregon is the proper forum to litigate this dispute. Accordingly, defendants' motion to transfer venue (# 14) is DENIED.