Hoefert v. American Airlines Incorporated et al
Filing
38
ORDER granting 21 Defendant's Motion. The Clerk of Court shall transfer this matter to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas and terminate the case in the District of Arizona. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 6/6/18. (EJA)
WO
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
John E. Hoefert,
9
10
Plaintiff,
vs.
11
12
American Airlines Inc.,
Defendant.
13
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-17-02996-PHX-SPL
ORDER
15
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue to the United States
16
District Court for the Northern District of Texas (the “Motion”) (Doc. 21). For the
17
reasons that follow, the Motion will be granted.
18
I.
Background
19
Plaintiff John E. Hoefert filed this lawsuit against Defendant American Airlines,
20
Inc. as an individual and on behalf of all other similarly situated plaintiffs pursuant to the
21
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, 38 U.S.C.
22
4301, et. seq. (Doc. 1) The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all current and former
23
pilots employed by the Defendant who have taken military leave since July 1, 2012.
24
(Doc. 21 at 2)
25
The Defendant is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its headquarters in Fort
26
Worth, Texas. (Doc. 21 at 2) The majority of the employees and operations that are
27
relevant to the issues in this case are also located in Fort Worth, Texas. (Doc. 21 at 4)
28
The Defendant’s current process of administrating the benefits at issue was implemented
1
as the result of a similar class action lawsuit brought in 2007 by the Department of Justice
2
against the Defendant in the Northern District of Texas (the “Woodall Litigation”). (Doc.
3
21 at 4)
4
Defendant to modify its administration of sick time and vacation benefits to pilots on
5
military leave. (Doc. 21 at 4) The Defendant filed this Motion to transfer venue of this
6
case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas simultaneously
7
with its answer. (Doc. 21; Doc. 18)
8
II.
The Woodall Litigation ended in 2008 with a settlement, requiring the
Standard of Review
9
“For the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a
10
district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might
11
have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). District courts exercise broad discretion to
12
adjudicate motions to transfer on an individualized, case-by-case determination. Jones v.
13
GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000).
14
determination, courts consider (1) whether the case could have been brought in the forum
15
which the moving party seeks to have the case transferred to, and (2) whether the
16
proposed forum is a more suitable venue based on the convenience of the parties and the
17
interest of justice. Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 409, 414 (9th Cir. 1985).
In making such a
18
Courts may consider a variety of factors when determining whether transfer is
19
warranted based on the convenience of the parties and in the interest of justice, including:
20
(1) the location where the relevant agreements were negotiated and executed, (2) the state
21
that is most familiar with the governing law, (3) the plaintiff’s choice of forum, (4) the
22
respective parties’ contacts with the forum, (5) the contacts relating to the plaintiff’s
23
cause of action in the chosen forum, (6) the differences in the costs of litigation in the two
24
forums, (7) the availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling
25
non-party witnesses, and (8) the ease of access to sources of proof. Jones, 211 F.3d at
26
498–99. Other factors that may be considered are “ensuring speedy trials, trying related
27
litigation together, and having a judge who is familiar with the applicable law try the
28
case.” Conte v. Ginsey Indus., Inc., 2012 WL 3095019, at 2 (D. Ariz. 2012) (internal
2
1
citations omitted). No single factor is dispositive. R. Prasad Indus. v. Flat Irons Envtl.
2
Sols. Corp., 2017 WL 4409463, at 3 (D. Ariz. 2017).
3
A plaintiff’s choice of forum is given deference and will not ordinarily be
4
disturbed unless a defendant is capable of “making a strong showing” of inconvenience
5
so as to warrant transfer. Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834,
6
843 (9th Cir. 1986). Transfer of venue is inappropriate, however, if “the result is merely
7
to shift the inconvenience from one party to another.” Scovil v. Medtronic, Inc., 995 F.
8
Supp. 2d 1082, 1099 (D. Ariz. 2014).
9
III.
10
Discussion
Both parties stipulate, and the Court agrees, that the United States District Court
11
for the Northern District of Texas is a proper venue for this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
12
§ 1391 because the Defendant is headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, and a substantial
13
part of the events giving rise to the Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Fort Worth, Texas.
14
(Doc. 24 at 1–2; Doc. 21 at 10) Accordingly, the Court focuses its analysis on whether
15
the Northern District of Texas is a more suitable venue for the case based on the
16
convenience of the parties and the interest of justice.
17
Generally, a plaintiff’s choice of forum is to be given “substantial deference”
18
where the plaintiff has chosen its home forum. Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., 104 F. Supp.
19
2d. 48, 52 (D.D.C. 2000). However, in cases where an individual is bringing an action on
20
behalf of others, the plaintiff’s choice is given less weight. Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d
21
730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987) (stating that consideration must be given to the parties’ contacts
22
with the forum, and if the operative facts have not occurred within the forum and the
23
forum has no interest in the parties or subject matter, then the plaintiff’s choice is entitled
24
to minimal consideration). The Plaintiff in this case has chosen the District of Arizona,
25
but this is only one factor to be considered and is not dispositive. Impra Inc. v. Quinton
26
Instruments Co., 1990 WL 284713, 1 (D. Ariz. 1990).
27
purporting to reside in the District of Arizona, the Plaintiff argues that the Defendant
28
transacts business in the forum because of its flight operations at Phoenix Sky Harbor
3
Aside from the Plaintiff
1
International Airport located in Phoenix, Arizona. (Doc. 24 at 1) The Defendant argues
2
that the Plaintiff no longer resides in Arizona, and that the overwhelming majority of the
3
parties and witnesses to this matter are located in Texas or east of Texas. (Doc. 21 8–9)
4
The Court finds there are several factors to support a finding that transfer of this
5
case to the Northern District of Texas is warranted. One factor that weighs in favor of
6
keeping the case in the District of Arizona is that the Plaintiff does not appear to have any
7
contacts with the proposed forum.
8
(although this fact is disputed by the Defendant), and the Defendant transacts business in
9
the District of Arizona. (Doc. 24 at 1; Doc. 21 at 3) While the Defendant is headquartered
10
in the Northern District of Texas, the record does not reflect that the Plaintiff has any
11
direct contacts with Texas. (Doc. 21 at 2)
The Plaintiff resides in the District of Arizona
12
Further, an important factor in this analysis is in which forum the case can be most
13
efficiently and economically litigated. “The convenience of witnesses is said to be the
14
most important factor in passing on a transfer motion.” F.T.C v. Wyndham Worldwide
15
Corp., 2013 WL 1222491, at 3 (D. Ariz. 2013). Each party has indicated that a number
16
of material witnesses would be inconvenienced by having to travel to another forum.
17
(Doc. 24 at 5; Doc. 21 at 8) And, while the parties dispute whether the Plaintiff continues
18
to be a resident of Arizona, the Court is satisfied that most, if not all, of the non-party
19
witnesses to this matter would find the Northern District of Texas to be a more
20
convenient venue.
21
In evaluating this factor, courts look at the quantity of witnesses in each potential
22
venue and the nature and quality of witness testimony.
23
inconvenience to witnesses, the moving party must identify relevant witnesses, state their
24
location and describe their testimony and its relevance.” Haswell v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger
25
Corp., 2006 WL 839067, at 2 (D. Ariz. 2006). Here, the Defendant has identified a
26
witness, Scott Hansen, who the Defendant expects to testify in this litigation. (Doc. 21 at
27
8) Hansen serves as the “Director [of] Flight Administration” for the Defendant. (Doc.
28
21-1 at 2.) Hansen is based in Fort Worth, Texas, along with the Defendant’s operations
4
“To demonstrate an
1
and several employees. (Doc. 21-1 at 2)
Hansen will testify to the Defendant’s
2
administrative operations related to pilots. (Doc. 21-1 at 2.) The Defendant has also
3
identified approximately four other witnesses who, like Hansen, are based in Fort Worth,
4
Texas. (Doc. 21 at 8) The Court finds that the potential quantity and quality of the
5
testimony of Texas-based witnesses outweighs that of the Arizona-based witnesses.
6
Accordingly, the convenience of the parties and witnesses to this matter favors transfer.
7
The Court also finds that the Northern District of Texas will be a more efficient
8
and inexpensive forum for the case. The majority of the events giving rise to this
9
litigation were based in operations and actions that took place in Fort Worth, Texas.
10
(Doc. 21 at 10) While Plaintiff argues that most of the exhibits or documents necessary
11
to this case can be easily transmitted to the District of Arizona with minimal expense, the
12
Court finds it will be less expensive to produce the relevant documents in the Northern
13
District of Texas. (Doc. 24 at 6) The fact that the Defendant’s headquarters are located in
14
the Northern District of Texas and that the majority of the witnesses that are likely to be
15
material to this action are also primarily located in the same district results in this factor
16
weighing heavily in favor of transferring the case to the Northern District of Texas.
17
Finally, the Plaintiff argues that the presence of similar class action suits against
18
the Defendant should have no bearing on the decision to transfer venue. The Court
19
disagrees. A court may consider whether the parties are involved in a similar case in
20
another district. Advanced Semiconductor Materials Am. Inc. v. Applied Materials Inc.,
21
1993 WL 653027, 2 (D. Ariz. 1993). (stating cases should be transferred to districts
22
where related actions are pending.) In this case, the settlement of a similar suit between
23
the Department of Justice and the Defendant regarding similar allegations as those
24
brought by the Plaintiff provides an additional persuasive factor in favor of transfer. The
25
facts surrounding the Woodall Litigation demonstrate that the Northern District of Texas
26
will be familiar with the law and the background important to this case. (Doc. 21 at 4)
27
Therefore, transferring this case to the Northern District of Texas will allow for courts
28
that already have familiarity with similar matters to address this case efficiently. Thus,
5
1
the Defendant has satisfied its burden of providing a strong showing that transfer of this
2
case to the Northern District of Texas is in the interest of justice.
3
IV.
4
Upon a balancing of the relevant factors, this Court finds that the interest of justice
5
Conclusion
requires this matter to be transferred to the Northern District of Texas. Accordingly,
6
IT IS ORDERED:
7
1. That the Defendant’s Motion (Doc. 21) is granted;
8
2. That the Clerk of Court shall transfer this matter to the United States District
9
Court for the Northern District of Texas and terminate the case in the District of Arizona.
10
Dated this 6th day of June, 2018.
11
12
Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?