767 F. Supp. 2d 208
D. Me.2011Background
- Johnson and Prindle filed a FLSA and Maine Overtime Law class action against VCG in the District of Maine (Oct. 27, 2010).
- VCG moved to transfer venue to the District of Colorado (Dec. 9, 2010).
- Plaintiffs objected to the transfer (Jan. 4, 2011); VCG replied (Jan. 14, 2011).
- VCG is headquartered and incorporated in Colorado; KenKev (Maine) is one of many subsidiaries; IEC is Colorado-based; majority of potential witnesses are in Colorado.
- Maine residents work for VCG, and part of the case involves Maine law; documents and payroll records are largely in Colorado but some employment files are in Maine; plaintiffs contend Maine has substantial local interest and convenience considerations for Maine plaintiffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether transfer is permissible under §1404(a). | VCG bears burden; Maine interest supports retention. | Private/public factors favor transfer to Colorado where witnesses/docs are located. | .transfer denied; factors do not clearly favor Colorado |
| Impact of plaintiff's forum choice in a FLSA action. | Plaintiff forum choice deserves substantial weight in FLSA suits. | In nationwide FLSA actions, plaintiff's choice is less deference-bearing. | plaintiff's choice receives significant, but not absolute, deference; Maine forum retained |
| Private conveniences of witnesses and access to documents. | Colorado location would still inconvenience both Maine plaintiffs and witnesses; many witnesses near Maine can testify. | VCG witnesses and documents are concentrated in Colorado; Maine is less convenient. | slightly favors VCG on convenience but not enough to transfer |
| Maine interest and Maine law aspects; severability and supplemental jurisdiction. | Maine's statutory interests and Maine-law claims weigh against transfer; joinder of Maine law claim matters. | Severing/sending Maine-law claim to Maine would undermine economy; Maine law is manageable in Colorado. | Maine interest and Maine-law considerations favor retention; no severance |
Key Cases Cited
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981) (strong plaintiff-forum deference; must weigh private/public factors)
- Coady v. Ashcraft & Gerel, 223 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2000) (burden of proving transfer; strong presumption in favor of plaintiff's forum)
- Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (1988) (private and public factors in §1404(a) analysis)
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (1964) (transfer decisions must consider forum state's law/mixing)
- Astro-Med, Inc. v. Nihon Kohden Am., Inc., 591 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2009) (case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness in transfer)