Case Information
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN CHARLETTA HARWELL-PAYNE,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. OPINION and ORDER CUDAHY PLACE SENIOR LIVING, LLC, 20-cv-804-jdp MATTHEWS SENIOR LIVING, ENCORE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT, and
ENCORE SENIOR LIVING,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Charletta Harwell-Payne seeks to bring a class and collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Wisconsin wage law. She is suing her former employer, defendant Cudahy Place Senior Living, LLC, as well as three entities that she says operate Cudahy Place and other nursing homes in Wisconsin and Minnesota. She alleges that all defendants improperly accounted for meal breaks, failed to pay promised commissions, failed to pay for time spent training other employees, and required employees to submit to off-the- clock COVID-19 screening.
The question before the court is whether the case should be litigated in the Western District of Wisconsin or the Eastern. Cudahy Place is the only defendant that has appeared. Harwell-Payne has yet to file proof of service on the other three defendants. Cudahy Place moves to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Dkt. 32. Both Harwell-Payne and Cudahy Place reside in the Eastern District, the events underlying this case occurred in that district, and Harwell- Payne doesn’t identify any strong reason to keep the case in this district. So the court will grant the motion to transfer. Cudahy Place also moves to dismiss some of Harwell- Payne’s claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. 29. Because the court is transferring the case, it will not rule on any motion involving the merits.
BACKGROUND
The background facts are drawn from the allegations in the complaint and the evidence submitted in connection with the motion to transfer.
Harwell-Payne worked as a “Med Aide” for Cudahy Place. Dkt. 28, ¶ 4. Cudahy Place is located in Cudahy, Wisconsin, a suburb of Milwaukee. Defendants say that Harwell-Payne also resides in Milwaukee County, citing court records from the Milwaukee County Circuit Court. Dkt. 34, ¶ 2. Harwell- Payne doesn’t dispute that she resides in Milwaukee County. Payne alleges that Matthews Senior Living was Cudahy Place’s “operator” because the Matthews Senior Living website “listed Cudahy Place as a location of Matthews Senior Living” and because Cudahy Place’s website “state[s] that it is a Matthews Senior Living Community.” Dkt. 28, ¶¶ 6 – 7. Harwell-Payne also alleges that Matthews Senior Living, Encore Management and Development, and Encore Senior Living are all the same entity. She includes the following allegations in her amended complaint to support this position:
• Matthews Senior Living and Encore Management have the same owners and officers.
• Encore Managemen t’s LinkedIn profile says that its website is http://www.matthewsseniorliving.com.
• Encore Senior Living and Encore Management have the same officers. • Encore Senior Living’s website includes a list of the same nursing homes , including Cudahy Place, that are listed as operated by Matthews Senior Living and Encore Management on LinkedIn profiles for Thomas Ostrom (Encore Management’s owner) and “Weater” (whom Harwell - Payne doesn’t identify). Id. , ¶¶ 7 – 8.
According to Harwell-Payne, Encore Senior Livin g’s website states that it operates four nursing homes located within the Western District of Wisconsin, in Portage, De Forest, Middleton, and Sun Prairie.
Cudahy Place denies that Matthews Senior Living, Encore Management, and Encore Senior Living are legal entities with the capacity to be sued. Harwell- Payne’s complaint does not indicate what types of companies these entities are. And the court’s search of the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institution’s corporate records yields no active entities named “Matthews Senior Living , ” “Encore Management and Development , ” or “Encore Senior Living.” [1]
ANALYSIS
Cudahy Place contends that transfer is required because the Eastern District is a more appropriate forum for this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and because venue is improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Because the court concludes that transfer is appropriate under § 1404(a), it doesn’t need to consider the parties’ arguments regarding venue.
Section 1404(a) allows a court to transfer a case to another district in which the case could have been brought if the transfer (1) will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses; and (2) will promote the interest of justice. Cudahy Place has the burden of showing that transfer is appropriate. Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works , 796 F.2d 217, 219 – 20 (7th Cir. 1986).
Payne’s primary argument is that her choice of forum is entitled to deference.
T he plaintiff’s choice of forum is typically entitled to some deference, but under the
circumstance s of this case, the plaintiff’s choice is not decisive. This is not plaintiff’s home
forum, and the Eastern District’s connection to the dispute is far stronger than the Western
District’s, suggesting that she chose this forum not “for convenience, but rat her for strategic
advantage.”
Holmes v. Sid’s Sealants, LLC
, No. 16-cv-821-wmc,
Other than plaintiff’s choice of forum, she doesn’t have much in her favor in the transfer
analysis. In considering the convenience of the parties and witnesses , “courts generally consider
the availability of and access to witnesses, and each party’s access to and distance from
resources in each foru m.”
Research Automation, Inc. v. Schrader- Bridgeport Int’l, Inc.
,
Harwell-Payne contends that the additional distance between Cudahy Place and this
district’s courthouse isn’t great enough to weigh in favor of transfer. She primarily relies on
Holmes
,
Harwell-Payne also relies on Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development v. United States Department of Education , No. 18-cv-220-jdp, 2018 WL 3036415 (W.D. Wis. June 19, 2018), in which this court declined to transfer a case to the Eastern District. But the decision in that case, which involved a petition for judicial review of an arbitration panel’s decision, depended on two significant considerations that are absent here: the court’s review was strictly confined to the administrative record, and such petitions for judicial review are typically resolved without a hearing. Id. at *3. The inconvenience to the parties and witnesses of keeping this case in the Western District is not extraordinary, because Madison just isn’t that far from Milwaukee. But it’s a factor that weighs in favor of transferring the case to the district where the parties and witnesses are.
As for the interest of justice, this inquiry “relates to the eff icient administration of the
court system” and focuses on factors including the courts’ relative speeds, the courts’ relative
familiarity with the relevant law, the desirability of resolving the dispute in one district over
another, and the relationship of each community to the dispute.
Research Automation
, 626 F.3d
at 978 (internal citations omitted). The first two factors don’t weigh either for or against
transfer. Cudahy Place contends that the Eastern District’s docket is less congested than this
distri ct’s because this district has a higher rate of cases per active judge. But the median time
between filing and disposition is similar in the two districts (7.1 months in the Eastern District
and 7.4 months in this district). Dkt. 34-3, at 7. Likewise, both courts are presumably equally
familiar with the relevant law. But the latter two factors weigh in favor of transfer because the
Eastern District’s interest in this suit is plainly stronger than the Western District’s . The core
dispute in this case is between two residents of the Eastern District , making that district “closer
to the action” underlying the case and weighing in favor of transfer.
Packman v. Prudential Ins.
Co. of Am.
, No. 19-cv-1012-jdp,
In sum, both the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice weigh in favor of transfer. This district has only the most tenuous, speculative connection to the case, and Harwell-Payne hasn’t identified any good reason to keep the case here. The court will grant Cudahy Place’s motion to transfer the case.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Defendant Cudahy P lace Senior Living, LLC’s motion to transfer, Dkt. 32, is GRANTED.
2. This case is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
Entered March 15, 2021.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________ JAMES D. PETERSON District Judge
Notes
[1] See Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions, https://www.wdfi.org/apps/CorpSearch/ Search.aspx.