315 F.R.D. 18
S.D.N.Y.2016Background
- Elyse Dickerson, a Fort Worth, Texas resident, worked for Alcon from 2002 until her termination on January 2, 2015; she was Global Marketing Director and alleges gender-based pay and promotion discrimination, retaliation, unlawful termination, FMLA violations, and defamation.
- Dickerson filed an EEOC charge in Texas in August 2014; she alleges a retaliatory investigation and termination while on medical leave, shortly before large stock grants would vest.
- Plaintiffs also asserted class and collective Equal Pay Act and Title VII claims; Dickerson is not a class/collective representative and pursued individual claims (including defamation) alongside the class/collective action.
- The parties reached a proposed settlement on the class/collective claims but not on Dickerson’s individual claims; the court entered a separate case schedule for Dickerson’s claims, which have proceeded on a different track.
- Defendants moved to sever Dickerson’s individual claims under Rule 21 and to transfer those claims to the Northern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); the court granted severance and transfer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dickerson's individual claims should be severed from the class/collective action (Rule 21) | Severance unnecessary because claims arise from common pay-discrimination policy and case has proceeded as one action | Severance appropriate because most of Dickerson’s claims (termination, retaliation, FMLA, defamation) are distinct, involve different witnesses/evidence, and are already on a separate track | Court granted severance — individual claims severed (distinct facts/witnesses, little efficiency lost) |
| Whether venue should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas (§ 1404(a)) | New York forum justified by Novartis corporate presence and some witnesses; plaintiff’s chosen forum entitled to weight | Transfer appropriate: operative facts, most witnesses, and documents are in Texas; transfer promotes convenience and justice | Court granted transfer — factors (witness convenience, locus of operative facts, documents) favor Texas |
| Convenience of witnesses and availability of process (subpoena power) | Plaintiff identified several potential NY-based and out-of-district witnesses; transfer would inconvenience them and place some outside 100-mile subpoena zone | Defendants identified key material witnesses in Texas; plaintiff didn’t show materiality for many NY witnesses and alternatives (deposition) exist | Court weighed materiality over headcount, found Texas witnesses more central and factor favors transfer |
| Weight of plaintiff's choice of forum and trial efficiency | Plaintiff’s choice of SDNY entitled to deference; case has been pending >1 year | Plaintiff is not a home-forum plaintiff; operative facts occurred in Texas; case remains in early stages and consolidating would not advance judicial economy | Court gave diminished weight to plaintiff's forum choice and found overall interests of justice/trial efficiency favor transfer |
Key Cases Cited
- N. Jersey Media Grp. Inc. v. Fox News Network, LLC, 312 F.R.D. 111 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (lists severance factors under Rule 21)
- Oram v. SoulCycle LLC, 979 F. Supp. 2d 498 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (severance is an ‘‘exceptional’’ procedural device; factors considered)
- New York v. Hendrickson Bros., 840 F.2d 1065 (2d Cir. 1988) (district court discretion on severance)
- Erausquin v. Notz, Stucki Mgmt. (Bermuda) Ltd., 806 F. Supp. 2d 712 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (functional separation of claims can render severance appropriate)
- Medicare Beneficiaries’ Def. Fund v. Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield, 938 F. Supp. 1131 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) (courts may sever individual claims from class claims for management and fairness)