History
  • No items yet
midpage
317 F. Supp. 3d 890
E.D. Pa.
2018
Read the full case

Background

  • Plaintiffs are delivery drivers for TL Transportation (TLT); some worked in Pennsylvania (Hickman) and some in Maryland (Bolden). Plaintiffs allege day-rate pay that omitted overtime under the FLSA and state wage laws.
  • TLT is run by two Maryland-resident officers, Herschell Lowe (President) and Scott Foreman (VP/owner), who made company decisions from Maryland and implemented a companywide day-rate payroll policy in July 2015.
  • Foreman made repeated business trips to Pennsylvania to open and operate a King of Prussia facility, meet managers, hold safety meetings, and oversee staffing; Lowe made several trips to Pennsylvania to observe safety training and to interview/hire drivers regionally.
  • Pennsylvania Plaintiffs assert FLSA and Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act claims; Maryland Plaintiff asserts Maryland wage-law claims. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue as to the individual officers.
  • The court analyzed specific personal jurisdiction under Third Circuit standards (purposeful direction/availment; relatedness; and fairness) and applied Pennsylvania’s long-arm statute as coextensive with constitutional due process.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Personal jurisdiction over Foreman & Lowe for Pennsylvania plaintiffs' wage claims Foreman/Lowe had business contacts in PA tied to operations and workforce; jurisdiction proper Contacts were managerial decisions made in Maryland and not sufficiently related to PA claims Court: PJ exists — officers’ PA activities (opening/overseeing site, hiring, training) related to working conditions and wages; jurisdiction constitutional and fair
Personal jurisdiction over Foreman & Lowe for Maryland plaintiffs' Maryland wage-law claim Bolden’s claim arises under Maryland law but is pleaded as class claim; PJ could attach via national/company contacts No connection between officers’ PA contacts and Bolden’s Maryland-only work; Bristol-Myers bars PJ for out-of-forum plaintiffs Court: Dismissed Count III as to Foreman & Lowe — Bristol-Myers reasoning applies to Maryland-state-law claim absent related PA contacts
Venue in Eastern District of Pennsylvania Plaintiffs: substantial part of events occurred in this district (work performed in PA) Officers argue key decisions occurred in Maryland so venue improper Court: Venue proper — Pennsylvania Plaintiffs worked in venues located in this district, satisfying §1391(b)(2)
Application of Bristol-Myers to federal FLSA collective/class claims Plaintiffs: Bristol-Myers limited to state mass tort context; does not necessarily divest federal court of PJ for nationwide FLSA claims Defendants: Bristol-Myers supports limiting PJ for out-of-forum class members Court: Did not apply Bristol-Myers to FLSA claims; noted distinction and left FLSA collective claims intact (but dismissed Maryland-state-law claim against officers)

Key Cases Cited

  • Metcalfe v. Renaissance Marine, Inc., 566 F.3d 324 (3d Cir. 2009) (plaintiff bears burden to establish prima facie personal jurisdiction)
  • O'Connor v. Sandy Lane Hotel Co., 496 F.3d 312 (3d Cir. 2007) (prima facie burden and jurisdictional framework)
  • Miller Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Smith, 384 F.3d 93 (3d Cir. 2004) (relatedness inquiry and individualized analysis)
  • D'Jamoos ex rel. Estate of Weingeroff v. Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., 566 F.3d 94 (3d Cir. 2009) (claims may arise out of or relate to forum activities)
  • Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (minimum contacts and foreseeability in specific jurisdiction)
  • International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (foundational due process standard for personal jurisdiction)
  • Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (U.S. 2014) (contacts must be with the forum itself, not just effects felt there)
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 582 U.S. _ (U.S. 2017) (state courts may not assert specific jurisdiction over nonresident plaintiffs whose claims lack connection to the forum)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Hickman v. TL Transp., LLC
Court Name: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Date Published: Jul 12, 2018
Citations: 317 F. Supp. 3d 890; CIVIL ACTION No. 17-01038
Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION No. 17-01038
Court Abbreviation: E.D. Pa.
Log In
    Hickman v. TL Transp., LLC, 317 F. Supp. 3d 890