Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Taylor v. Republic Services Inc.

United States District Court, D. Arizona

November 21, 2016

Charles Taylor and Richard LaBryer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
Republic Services, Inc., Defendant.

          ORDER

          David G. Campbell United States District Judge

         Defendant Republic Services, Inc. moves to transfer this case to the Southern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Doc. 28. The motion is fully briefed, and the Court discussed the motion with the parties on November 17, 2016. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the motion.

         I. Background.

         Plaintiffs are ten individuals from Texas and two from Pennsylvania who claim that Republic violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) when it failed to pay them overtime and engaged in other improper compensation practices. Plaintiffs have sued on behalf of a potential nationwide class of present and former Republic employees.

         Republic notes that a similar case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Serrano v. Republic Services, Inc., No 2:14-CV-00077. The Serrano case makes many of the same claims as this case and includes a class of Texas plaintiffs with similar FLSA claims against Republic. Republic argues that Texas is the more convenient forum under the factors to be considered in a § 1404(a) motion.[1]

         II. Legal Standard.

         “For the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Plaintiffs do not dispute that this action could have been brought in the Southern District of Texas.

         In ruling on Defendant's motion, the Court must consider several factors: (1) the convenience of the parties and witnesses, (2) the availability of compulsory process to compel unwilling witness attendance, (3) the ease of access to sources of proof, (4) the differences in the costs of litigating in the two forums, (5) contacts with the chosen forum, (6) jurisdiction over the parties, and (7) the relative familiarity of the two courts with the applicable law and the pendency of related actions in other forums. Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 2000); Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000).

         III. Analysis.

         A. Plaintiffs' Choice of Forum.

         Courts are reluctant to upset a plaintiff's choice of forum, but the choice “is normally only given substantial deference if the plaintiff is a resident of the district in which the action is brought. Otherwise, this bears little significance on determining whether to grant a discretionary transfer.” Miracle Blade, LLC. v. Ebrands Commerce Grp., LLC., 207 F.Supp.2d 1136, 1155 (D. Nev. 2002) (citing Collins v. JC Penney Life Ins. Co., No. C 01-4069-SI, 2002 WL 505931, *3 (N.D. Cal. 2002)). In addition, the plaintiff's choice is given less deference in a class action that implicates many different class members from many different states. Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Although great weight is generally accorded plaintiff's choice of forum[, ] . . . when an individual . . . represents a class, the named plaintiff's choice of forum is given less weight.”); Hawkins v. Gerber Prod. Co., 924 F.Supp.2d 1208, 1214 (S.D. Cal. 2013) (same).

         Both factors are present here. Plaintiffs are from Texas and Pennsylvania, not Arizona, and they seek to represent a nationwide class of Republic employees. The Court accordingly will not attach significant weight to their choice of forum.

         B. Relevant Factors.

         1. Convenience of the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.