Judd v. Keypoint Government Solutions Incorporated
1:18-cv-00327
D. Colo.Feb 9, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Orson Judd, an Arizona resident, sued KeyPoint Government Solutions, Inc. under the FLSA alleging misclassification of investigators as independent contractors and unpaid overtime; he filed as a collective action on behalf of investigators nationwide.
- KeyPoint is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Loveland, Colorado; it provides background-investigation services to the U.S. government.
- KeyPoint moved to transfer venue to the District of Colorado under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), alternatively to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and sought a stay; the district court previously granted a stay pending the transfer motion.
- Plaintiff had previously opted into a related Colorado FLSA case (Smith v. KeyPoint), which was dismissed on statute-of-limitations grounds; Plaintiff’s opt-in status suggested willingness to litigate in Colorado.
- The court found venue proper in Colorado (corporate residence/principal place of business) and weighed convenience factors—witness locations, sources of proof, docket speed—and concluded Colorado was the more appropriate forum.
- The court granted transfer to the District of Colorado, denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice, and left conditional-certification issues for the transferee court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper venue | Arizona is proper forum because plaintiff resides there and some contacts exist | Colorado is proper because KeyPoint’s principal place of business and corporate contacts are in Colorado | Venue is proper in Colorado (corporate residence/principal place establishes residence for venue) |
| Transfer under §1404(a) (convenience & interest of justice) | Plaintiff’s chosen forum deserves deference; contacts with Arizona exist and docket differences are insignificant | Colorado is more convenient for key witnesses, evidence at HQ, related litigation familiarity, and has a faster docket | Transfer granted: convenience of witnesses, sources of proof, prior related litigation, and docket speed favor Colorado |
| Deference to plaintiff’s forum choice (class/collective context) | Plaintiff’s forum choice should be given substantial weight | Transfer justified despite plaintiff’s choice due to other factors | Plaintiff’s forum choice given reduced deference because he seeks to represent a collective and previously litigated related claims in Colorado; this supports transfer |
| Effect on conditional certification and stay | Plaintiff sought conditional certification in Arizona | Defendant sought stay pending transfer | Court stayed and transferred; left conditional-certification decision to the District of Colorado |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2000) (district court’s individualized §1404(a) transfer analysis and relevant factors)
- Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (U.S. 1988) (courts exercise broad discretion on transfer motions)
- Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834 (9th Cir. 1986) (plaintiff’s forum choice will not be disturbed absent strong showing of inconvenience)
- Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730 (9th Cir. 1987) (forum choice receives less deference when plaintiff represents a class)
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (U.S. 1964) (transfer should not merely shift inconvenience between parties)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (U.S. 2014) (paradigmatic bases for general jurisdiction include place of incorporation and principal place of business)