2:23-cv-10250
E.D. Mich.Jun 14, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Teri Davis filed a putative collective action under the FLSA and Michigan IWOWA alleging she and other medical-billing contractors were misclassified as independent contractors and were denied overtime.
- Davis worked from her home in Howell (Livingston County) in the Eastern District of Michigan; she handled billing for multiple offices and alleges she worked >40 hours/week without overtime.
- Defendant Tricia E‑Billing Solutions, LLC is headquartered in Ingham County (Lansing) in the Western District of Michigan.
- Defendant moved to transfer the case to the Western District under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), arguing the majority of putative collective members, documentary evidence, and the company are located in the Western District.
- The court evaluated the § 1404(a) factors (convenience of parties/witnesses, access to proof, subpoena power, cost/efficiency, and interests of justice) and declined transfer.
- The court emphasized deference to the plaintiff’s chosen forum, found defendant failed to identify key witnesses or show substantial documentary burdens, and concluded only a slight weight favored transfer on locus of operative facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether action could have been brought in the Western District | Davis argued venue proper in Eastern District because she worked and felt the effects of payroll decisions there | Defendant argued venue proper in Western District because it resides there and most contractors live there | Action could have been brought in Western District (defendant resides there), so this prong satisfied |
| Deference to plaintiff's chosen forum / convenience of parties | Plaintiff argued her chosen forum merits substantial deference; she lives and worked in Eastern District | Defendant argued transfer is more convenient because majority of contractors and company are in Western District | Court gave plaintiff’s forum deference; defendant failed to show transfer would avoid shifting inconvenience; favors denying transfer |
| Convenience of witnesses | Implied: plaintiff/witnesses located in Eastern District and would be inconvenienced by transfer | Defendant listed contractor addresses (mostly Western District) but provided no affidavits identifying key witnesses or testimony | Failure to identify key witnesses/testimony meant this factor favored denying transfer |
| Access to proof, subpoena power, cost/expediency, interests of justice | Plaintiff noted work was performed in Eastern District and documents can be produced electronically; Eastern District has interest in protecting its workers | Defendant argued center of gravity and documents are in Lansing; subpoena power and local interest favor Western District | Documentary-location weight is minor (electronic access); subpoena factor neutral; locus of operative facts slightly favored defendant, but not enough—overall transfer denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Moses v. Business Card Express, Inc., 929 F.2d 1131 (6th Cir. 1991) (sets factors for § 1404(a) transfer analysis)
- Phelps v. McClellan, 30 F.3d 658 (6th Cir. 1994) (district court has broad discretion to grant or deny transfer)
- Audi AG v. D’Amato, 341 F. Supp. 2d 734 (E.D. Mich. 2004) (convenience of witnesses and plaintiff’s forum deference are important transfer considerations)
- Amphion, Inc. v. Buckeye Elec. Co., 285 F. Supp. 2d 943 (E.D. Mich. 2003) (moving party bears burden to show transfer strongly favors alternative forum)
- Thomas v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 131 F. Supp. 2d 934 (E.D. Mich. 2001) (substantial deference to plaintiff’s chosen forum)
- Wayne Cty. Emples.’ Ret. Sys. v. MGIC Inv. Corp., 604 F. Supp. 2d 969 (E.D. Mich. 2009) (importance of locus of operative facts in transfer analysis)