Tapp v. SkyWest Inc.
405 F.Supp.3d 771
N.D. Ill.2019Background
- Plaintiffs filed two related putative class suits challenging SkyWest’s "block-time" pay practices: Hirst (originally in N.D. Ill.) and Tapp (originally in N.D. Cal., later stipulated to transfer to N.D. Ill.). A third case, Wilson, is pending in the N.D. Cal.
- The parties agree consolidation is efficient, but disagree which forum should hear all claims; SkyWest moved the JPML for an MDL and to transfer Wilson to Illinois; plaintiffs moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer Hirst and Tapp to N.D. Cal.
- This Court previously dismissed plaintiffs’ FLSA claims and entered final judgment; the Seventh Circuit affirmed FLSA dismissal but reinstated state-law claims; certiorari petitions were denied.
- The Court evaluated § 1404(a) transferability: venue/timing rules govern (venue assessed at time of filing), plaintiffs’ stipulation to transfer Tapp to Illinois reduces weight of their current forum preference, and unnamed class members cannot confer venue.
- Court held Hirst cannot be transferred to N.D. Cal. because venue was improper for the named plaintiffs; denied transfer of Tapp because plaintiffs failed to show California was clearly more convenient and the interest of justice favored keeping the cases in Illinois given the Court’s familiarity and prior proceedings.
- The Court observed consolidation is desirable but § 1404(a) cannot achieve full consolidation here; whether to centralize via MDL is for the JPML.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hirst may be transferred to N.D. Cal. under § 1404(a) | Consolidation in CA promotes judicial economy and convenience | Venue is improper for Hirst; named plaintiffs’ claims lack a substantial California nexus | Denied — Hirst could not originally have been brought in N.D. Cal.; unnamed class claims cannot cure venue defect |
| Whether Tapp should be transferred back to N.D. Cal. under § 1404(a) | CA is more convenient; overlapping claims with Wilson favor single forum | Plaintiffs earlier stipulated to transfer Tapp to Illinois; plaintiffs haven’t shown CA is clearly more convenient; Hirst remains in Illinois and SkyWest won’t consent | Denied — plaintiffs’ stipulation, lack of clear convenience gain, and interest-of-justice factors favor keeping Tapp in N.D. Ill. |
| Whether § 1404(a) can effect full consolidation of Hirst, Tapp, and Wilson | Transfer under § 1404(a) will consolidate related cases for efficiency | § 1404(a) cannot overcome venue defects or lack of consent; MDL/JPML is proper mechanism | Court: consolidation desirable but § 1404(a) cannot accomplish full consolidation here; JPML should address MDL request |
Key Cases Cited
- Research Automation, Inc. v. Schrader-Bridgeport Int’l, Inc., 626 F.3d 973 (7th Cir. 2010) (factors for interest of justice in § 1404(a) analysis)
- Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217 (7th Cir. 1986) (discretion of trial judge in transfer decisions)
- Heller Fin., Inc. v. Midwhey Powder Co. Inc., 883 F.2d 1286 (7th Cir. 1989) (burden to identify key witnesses for transfer motions)
- In re Bozic, 888 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2018) (unnamed class members’ claims cannot establish venue for named plaintiffs)
- ESCO Corp. v. Cashman Equip. Co., 65 F. Supp. 3d 626 (C.D. Ill. 2014) (venue is assessed as of the time of filing)
- Vandeveld v. Christoph, 877 F. Supp. 1160 (N.D. Ill. 1995) (§ 1404(a) transfer framework)
- Body Sci. LLC v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 846 F. Supp. 2d 980 (N.D. Ill. 2012) (list of convenience factors for transfer)
- Gueorguiev v. Max Rave, LLC, 526 F. Supp. 2d 853 (N.D. Ill. 2007) (greater weight accorded to non-party witness convenience)