Banks v. Central Refrigerated Services Inc, 2:15-cv-00105

Background

Plaintiff Melvin Banks (Indiana resident) applied electronically in March 2013 for a truck-driving job with Central Refrigerated Services and was denied; he sued under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) alleging Defendant obtained and relied on inaccurate consumer reports and failed to provide proper adverse-action notice and copies.
Defendant is headquartered in West Valley City, Utah (was a Utah corporation at the time); it processed applications, ordered consumer reports, and made hiring decisions from that Utah location per its HR manager’s declaration.
Plaintiff filed a putative nationwide class action in the Northern District of Indiana seeking statutory/punitive damages, declaratory relief, and fees; class size alleged to exceed 1,000 but no other members identified.
Defendant moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer venue to the District of Utah for convenience and in the interest of justice; plaintiff opposed, arguing Indiana was more convenient and transfer was untimely.
The magistrate judge evaluated private factors (plaintiff’s forum choice, situs of events, sources of proof, witness and party convenience) and public factors (docket speed, familiarity with law, community interest, delay) and granted transfer to Utah.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is appropriate	Banks argued Northern District of Indiana is proper and more convenient (his home forum; notice should have been received there)	Central argued events giving rise to the FCRA claim (ordering/reviewing report, hiring decision) occurred at its Utah headquarters, making Utah clearly more convenient	Transfer granted: court held Utah is clearly more convenient under § 1404(a) after weighing factors
Weight to give plaintiff’s choice of forum in a putative nationwide class action	Banks relied on usual deference to plaintiff’s home forum	Central argued less deference is due because action is a nationwide putative class and no class members identified in Indiana	Court afforded limited weight to plaintiff’s forum choice because the suit is a nationwide class and other members’ convenience is unknown
Location of documents and witnesses (sources of proof)	Banks said modern technology reduces this factor’s importance and did not identify Indiana sources	Central produced affidavit showing records and nearly all witnesses are located at Utah headquarters	Court found sources of proof and witness convenience favored transfer (most witnesses and records in Utah)
Timeliness and prejudice from defendant’s delay in moving to transfer	Banks argued the nine-month delay was dilatory and prejudicial	Central explained it initially sought dismissal, then after disclosures learned most evidence was in Utah and promptly moved	Court found delay justified and not prejudicial; motion not untimely

Key Cases Cited

Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (1964) (purpose of § 1404(a) is to prevent waste and unnecessary inconvenience)
Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217 (7th Cir. 1986) (three-part test for § 1404(a) transfer and discretion of district court)
Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981) (plaintiff’s forum choice entitled to substantial deference generally)
In re National Presto Indus., Inc., 347 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2003) (forum choice should rarely be disturbed absent strong reasons)
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947) (traditional forum non conveniens principles endorsing deference to plaintiff’s choice)
Research Automation, Inc. v. Schrader-Bridgeport Int’l, Inc., 626 F.3d 973 (7th Cir. 2010) (public-interest factors for § 1404(a) transfers include docket congestion, familiarity with law, and community relationship)
Jaramillo v. DineEquity, Inc., 664 F. Supp. 2d 908 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (situs of material events in FCRA cases often aligns with defendant’s place of business)