Hayes v. Convergent Healthcare Recoveries, Inc.
1:14-cv-01467
C.D. Ill.Jul 20, 2015Background
- Hayes filed a FDCPA class action against Convergent and CF Medical in Illinois over debt-collection letters.
- Defendants moved to transfer venue to the District of New Jersey under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
- Plaintiff alleges the letters originated from Illinois and the dispute centers on Illinois-based collections.
- Defendants argue New Jersey has stronger ties and is a more convenient forum for witnesses and records.
- Court finds venue proper in both districts and weighs convenience, witnesses, and interests of justice, denying transfer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue transfer is proper under §1404(a). | Hayes concedes proper venue in Illinois; transfer not clearly more convenient. | CHRI/CF Medical contend New Jersey is clearly more convenient. | Transfer denied; venue proper in Illinois and NJ despite motion. |
| How to weigh the plaintiff’s choice of forum in transfer analysis. | Plaintiff’s forum choice should be given deference, even if not home forum. | Plaintiff’s choice deserves less weight since it’s not home and New Jersey has ties. | Plaintiff's choice given deference; not displaced by transfer. |
| Whether the interests of justice favor transferring to New Jersey. | Illinois connection and witnesses favor Illinois. | District of New Jersey may be more efficient; NJ law familiarity matters. | Interests of justice do not favor transfer; Illinois remains suitable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217 (7th Cir. 1986) (burden to show transferee forums clearly more convenient)
- Roberts & Schaefer Co. v. Merit Contracting, Inc., 99 F.3d 248 (7th Cir. 1996) (multifactor analysis for transfer)
- Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (1988) (§1404(a) gives court case-by-case discretion)
- Research Automation, Inc. v. Schrader-Bridgeport Int’l, Inc., 626 F.3d 973 (7th Cir. 2010) (factors for interests of justice in transfer)
- Gullone v. Bayer Corp. (In re Factor VIII or IX Concentrate Blood Products), 484 F.3d 951 (7th Cir. 2007) (plaintiff’s choice forum relevance when suing far from home)
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981) (presumption in plaintiff’s favor applies with less force when forum far from home)
- Butterick Co. v. Will, 316 F.2d 111 (7th Cir. 1963) (require clear balance of inconvenience to disturb forum)
- Nelson v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp., 288 F.3d 954 (7th Cir. 2002) (federal courts interpret state statutes of limitations)