888 F. Supp. 2d 258
D. Conn.2012Background
- 39 plaintiffs sue Home Depot under FLSA and NH, NY, VT wage laws; Home Depot seeks severance of non-Connecticut claims and transfer to six states; a stay is sought but denied as moot.
- This case traces back to Aquilino v. Home Depot, where a nationwide FLSA collective action was decertified and opt-in plaintiffs' state-law claims were pursued in separate actions.
- Six actions were filed with regional clusters (CT, MA, NH, NY, PR, RI, VT); after consolidation efforts, the district court considered severance and transfer to individual states.
- Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied consolidation; this court lifted a stay and later granted severance and transfer motions.
- The court severs the CT plaintiffs from the non-Connecticut plaintiffs, creating seven separate actions, and transfers non-Connecticut claims to the states where those plaintiffs worked.
- A scheduling order is required; the court also requires identification of the New York plaintiffs’ district and clarification regarding Costello and Logan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether severance is appropriate | Plaintiffs contend common questions justify joinder. | Claims are not arising from a single transaction; separate trials are more efficient. | Severance granted; claims severed into seven actions. |
| Whether non-Connecticut claims should be transferred | Forcing one forum preserves convenience and consistency for all plaintiffs. | Transfer to districts where non-Connecticut plaintiffs worked promotes convenience and justice. | Transfer granted; non-Connecticut claims to the districts where those plaintiffs worked. |
| Whether a stay should be continued pending severance/transfer | Stay denied as moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Deskovic v. City of Peekskill, 673 F.Supp.2d 154 (S.D.N.Y.2009) (severance and testimony overlap considerations in joinder)
- Blesedell v. Mobil Oil Co., 708 F.Supp.2d 1408 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (patterns or practices evidence considerations for joinder/severance)
- United States v. Aquavella, 615 F.2d 12 (2d Cir.1979) (logically related claims; transactional/occurrence approach)
- Epstein v. Kemper Ins. Co., 210 F.Supp.2d 308 (S.D.N.Y.2002) (policy-based discrimination claims and severance considerations)
- Forjone v. California, 425 Fed.Appx. 73 (2d Cir.2011) (transfer analysis considerations in case-specific context)
- Duke v. Uniroyal, Inc., 928 F.2d 1413 (4th Cir.1991) (jury can distinguish evidence in multi-plaintiff discrimination context)
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (1964) (transfer of federal cases and applying proper law; unitary federal law principle)
- Aquilino v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc., 2011 WL 564039 (D.N.J.2011) (decertification and individualized discovery in wage-hour context)