Berlanga v. Basic Energy Services LP
3:17-cv-00106
N.D. Tex.Oct 30, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Josue Berlanga filed an FMLA suit in the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, against Basic Energy Services and related entities alleging retaliation for requesting leave to care for his son.
- Plaintiff resides in Fort Worth (Tarrant County); Defendant’s corporate headquarters and most documentary evidence are in Fort Worth; Plaintiff worked in locations within the Dallas–Fort Worth metro area (Bridgeport, Alvord, Arlington).
- Defendants moved to transfer the case from the Dallas Division to the Fort Worth Division under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), arguing Fort Worth is clearly more convenient.
- Relevant evidence (personnel file, attendance/pay records, leave requests) and most key witnesses are located in the Fort Worth Division; defendant’s HQ is less than a mile from the Fort Worth courthouse.
- The parties agreed the Fort Worth Division is a proper transferee venue; both divisions are equally competent on governing federal law and no conflict-of-law issues exist.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case should be transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) | Berlanga contends factors are neutral or favor keeping the case in Dallas; location of documents is inconsequential due to metro connectivity | Fort Worth is clearly more convenient for witnesses and access to proof; relevant events and HQ are in Fort Worth | Transfer granted: Fort Worth is "clearly more convenient" |
| Whether the Fort Worth Division is a proper transferee venue | Implicitly concedes venue could be proper there but emphasizes Dallas connection | Asserts Fort Worth is proper because HQ and alleged events/employee work sites are in that division | Fort Worth is a proper transferee district (venue could have been laid there) |
| Private-interest factors (access to proof; witness attendance cost; other practical problems) | Documents’ location is not a substantial hurdle; some witnesses live in Dallas Division | Documents and majority of witnesses are nearer Fort Worth courthouse, reducing travel/time/cost | Private factors overall favor transfer (access to proof and witness convenience favor Fort Worth; subpoena power neutral) |
| Public-interest factors and plaintiff’s forum choice | Plaintiff argues public factors neutral; urges deference to his forum choice | Defendants emphasize local interest of Fort Worth and that plaintiff is not a Dallas resident so less deference is due | Public factors (local interest) favor Fort Worth; other public factors neutral; plaintiff’s forum choice entitled to less deference; transfer appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Horseshoe Entm’t, 337 F.3d 429 (5th Cir.) (threshold venue inquiry under § 1404(a))
- In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir.) (private and public interest factors for § 1404(a) transfers)
- In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir.) (movant must show transferee is "clearly more convenient")
- In re Hoffman-La Roche Inc., 587 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir.) (subpoena power / compulsory process analysis)
- Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir.) (consideration of "interest of justice" in transfer analysis)
- In re Nintendo Co., 589 F.3d 1194 (Fed. Cir.) (transfer favored when most witnesses and evidence are closer to transferee)
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Hartzell Propeller, Inc., 454 U.S. 235 (U.S. Supreme Court) (forum non conveniens factors referenced for private-interest analysis)