Hays v. Kimco Facility Services, LLC
1:20-cv-05467
N.D. Ill.Sep 29, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Misti Hays, a Missouri resident, worked for Kimco Facility Services as a cleaner since May 2017 and alleges Kimco failed to pay earned overtime and retaliated by reducing her assignments after she complained.
- Hays alleges her district manager (Heidi Wilson) and area manager (Amanda Anderson) altered her timesheets, ignored complaints, and refused to produce requested timesheet copies; she also complained to Kimco payroll and HR (Onesimo Romero).
- Romero appears to have worked from Kimco’s Des Plaines, Illinois office; Wilson and Anderson are remote employees who live and work in Missouri.
- Kimco moved to dismiss for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3) or, alternatively, to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); Hays opposed transfer to the Eastern District of Missouri and asked for transfer to the Western District of Missouri.
- The court analyzed § 1404(a) factors (convenience of parties/witnesses and interest of justice) and determined Missouri was a more appropriate forum, ultimately ordering transfer to the Western District of Missouri (Springfield division) because the key managers fall within that court’s subpoena range.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper forum / dismissal v. transfer | Opposed dismissal; if transferred, prefers Western District of Missouri | Northern District of Illinois is not proper venue; move to dismiss or transfer to Eastern District of Missouri | Court declined to dismiss and ordered transfer to Western District of Missouri under § 1404(a) in interest of justice |
| Appropriateness of transfer under § 1404(a) (convenience factors) | Plaintiff’s choice of forum deserves deference (but not her home forum) | Key events, witnesses, and decisionmakers are in Missouri; Missouri is more convenient | § 1404(a) factors (situs of events, witness convenience, docket speed, local interest) weigh in favor of transfer to Missouri |
| Which Missouri district (Eastern v. Western) | Favors Western District (managers live/work there; seat of regional operations) | Seeks Eastern District (where plaintiff lived and worked) | Western District chosen because Wilson and Anderson are within its subpoena range while they would be outside the Eastern District’s subpoena range |
| Transfer rather than dismissal when venue improper | N/A | Asked dismissal as alternative remedy | Court held transfer preferable to dismissal in the interest of justice (avoid delay and prejudice to plaintiff) |
Key Cases Cited
- Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217 (7th Cir. 1986) (describing § 1404(a) convenience-of-parties/witnesses/justice framework and burden to show transferee forum is clearly more convenient)
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (1964) (§ 1404(a) requires individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness)
- Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463 (1962) (misfiled cases should generally be transferred rather than dismissed in the interest of justice)
- Cossart v. United Excel Corp., 804 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2015) (long-term employment of remote worker can constitute purposeful availment relevant to jurisdictional/venue considerations)
- Cloe v. City of Indianapolis, 712 F.3d 1171 (7th Cir. 2013) (judicial notice of distances using Google Maps appropriate for determining general distances)