Harwell-Payne, Charletta v. Cudahy Place Senior Living, LLC, 3:20-cv-00804

Plaintiff Charletta Harwell‑Payne sued under the FLSA and Wisconsin wage law alleging improper meal‑break accounting, unpaid commissions, unpaid training time, and off‑the‑clock COVID screening at Cudahy Place Senior Living and three related entities.
Only Cudahy Place Senior Living, LLC has appeared; the other three entities had not been served and Cudahy Place disputes their legal existence.
Both Harwell‑Payne and Cudahy Place reside in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, and the alleged events occurred in that district (Milwaukee area).
Cudahy Place moved to transfer the case to the Eastern District under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and moved to dismiss some claims under Rule 12(b)(6); the court deferred merits review because it ordered transfer.
The court reviewed convenience and interests‑of‑justice factors, found the Eastern District more closely connected to the dispute, and granted the motion to transfer.
The case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (order entered March 15, 2021).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is appropriate	Plaintiff relied on her choice of forum and argued distance to Madison courthouse is not sufficiently burdensome	Transfer favored because parties, witnesses, and events are centered in Eastern District; convenience and justice favor transfer	Granted: transfer to Eastern District upheld
Whether plaintiff’s choice of forum deserves strong deference	Harwell‑Payne urged deference to her chosen forum	Cudahy Place argued this is not plaintiff’s home forum and forum selection appears strategic	Court gave limited deference because this was not plaintiff’s home forum and Eastern District has far stronger connections
Whether court must decide venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391	Harwell‑Payne did not contest keeping case in Western District beyond her forum choice	Cudahy Place argued venue is improper in Western District	Court did not decide venue; transfer on §1404(a) made venue question unnecessary

Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217 (7th Cir. 1986) (movant bears burden to show transfer under §1404(a))
Research Automation, Inc. v. Schrader‑Bridgeport Int’l, Inc., 626 F.3d 973 (7th Cir. 2010) (convenience inquiry considers witnesses, access to proof, location of material events)