Jeremy Parr -v- Stevens Transport Inc.
Filing
48
ORDER TRANSFERRING ACTION TO NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS by Judge William Alsup [granting 37 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction]. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2019)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
JEREMY PARR, RONALD CASTLE, and
JULIE VINES, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public,
Plaintiffs,
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
No. C 19-02610-WHA
v.
ORDER TRANSFERRING
ACTION TO NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF TEXAS
STEVENS TRANSPORT, INC., STEVENS
TRANSPORT TL, INC., STEVENS
TRANSPORT CD, INC., and DOES 1–10,
inclusive,
Defendants.
/
INTRODUCTION
In this putative class action, defendants move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction
21
or, in the alternative, to transfer venue. To the extent stated below, the motion to dismiss is
22
DENIED and the motion to transfer is GRANTED.
23
24
STATEMENT
This is a putative wage-and-hour class action brought by three named plaintiffs, Jeremy
25
Parr, Ronald Castle, and Julie Vines, on behalf of nationwide truck drivers who performed work
26
in California, against defendants Stevens Transport, Inc., Stevens Transport CD, Inc., and
27
Stevens Transport TL, Inc. (Amd. Compl. ¶ 1) (Dkt. No. 32). Defendants share staff and office
28
1
space and are referred to collectively as Stevens Transport (Adams Decl. ¶¶ 5, 10, 25) (Dkt.
2
No. 37-1).
3
Stevens Transport provides trucking services throughout the United States. Stevens
4
Transport, Inc. and Stevens Transport CD are motor carriers who hire and employ truck drivers
5
to haul and deliver freight, while Stevens Transport TL brokers contracts between motor carriers
6
and shippers. All defendants are incorporated in Texas and have their corporate headquarters in
7
Dallas (Adams Decl. ¶¶ 5–6, 10, 25).
8
Plaintiff Parr resides in Missouri. Plaintiff Castle resides in Arizona. Plaintiff Vines
all putative class members as truck drivers to haul and deliver freight in the 48 contiguous states
11
For the Northern District of California
resides in Texas. No plaintiff resides in California. Stevens Transport employed plaintiffs and
10
United States District Court
9
(Amd. Compl. ¶¶ 11, 14, 17). On May 14, 2019, plaintiffs filed this putative class action in our
12
Northern District, alleging violations of various California wage and labor laws (Dkt. No. 1).
13
Two months later, defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer to
14
the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dkt. No. 37). Plaintiffs
15
responded by filing a first amended complaint. It outlines two alleged classes: (1) all current
16
and former truck drivers employed by defendants who drove within California for defendants
17
at any time during the applicable statutory period for the alleged claims; and (2) all current and
18
former truck drivers who performed services for defendants under an independent contractor
19
arrangement who drove within California for defendant at any time during the applicable
20
statutory period for the claims alleged in the complaint (Amd. Compl. ¶ 48).
21
Both sides thereafter stipulated to have defendants renew their motion in August, to give
22
defendants two weeks to file a motion to compel arbitration should this Court deny defendants’
23
motion, and to stay class and merits discovery pending resolution of defendants’ jurisdiction,
24
venue, and arbitration motions (Dkt. Nos. 35–36). At a hearing held on September 12, 2019, it
25
was unclear whether defendant Stevens Transport TL had sufficient contacts with California to
26
sustain personal jurisdiction. Following the hearing, an order allowed plaintiffs to complete a
27
Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Stevens Transport TL in connection with the personal jurisdiction
28
motion (Dkt. No. 43). Following the deposition, the parties stipulated to dismiss Stevens
2
1
Transport TL from the action (Dkt. No. 45). An order required defendants to file their motion to
2
compel arbitration by September 26 (Dkt. No. 43). This order follows.
3
ANALYSIS
4
1.
PERSONAL JURISDICTION.
5
This district court has specific, personal jurisdiction over Stevens Transport, Inc., and
6
Stevens Transport CD. First, defendants established minimum contacts with California when
7
they adopted uniform employment and wage policies, then sent their drivers into California to
8
collect and deliver freight, thus purposefully directing their activities at California. Yahoo!
9
Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme, 433 F.3d 1199, 1206 (9th Cir. 2006). Second, this
wage-and-hour claim unquestionably arises from those contacts as the plaintiffs are challenging
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
the application of defendants’ wage-and-hour policies to their work performed in California.
12
Third, defendants have failed to show the exercise of jurisdiction would be so unreasonable as
13
to offend due process.
14
Stevens Transport relies heavily on Gonzalez v. Crete Carrier Corp., another
15
wage-and-hour class action brought by truck drivers, to argue otherwise. 2019 WL 21782840
16
at *3 (W.D. Wash. May 20, 2019) (Judge John Coughenour). The instant order declines to
17
follow Gonzalez. Those drivers carried cargo for Crete in Washington and that should have
18
been enough to confer personal jurisdiction. Thus, this order finds there is specific, personal
19
jurisdiction over Stevens Transport, Inc. and Stevens Transport CD. Defendants’ motion to
20
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is therefore DENIED.
21
2.
22
Stevens Transport moves to transfer this action to the Northern District of Texas
23
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Because a large number of witnesses live and work in Dallas
24
and a greater proportion of the putative class members live in Texas than in California, this order
25
finds transfer is proper.
26
SECTION 1404(A).
Section 1404(a) states in pertinent part: “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses,
27
in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or
28
division where it might have been brought . . . .” The parties agree that venue would be proper
3
1
in either district. Thus, defendants’ motion only presents the question of whether convenience
2
and fairness favor transfer.
3
Convenience and fairness factors must be considered on an individualized, case-by-case
4
basis. Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988). District courts consider both
5
private factors concerning the convenience of the parties and witnesses and public factors
6
concerning the interest of justice. Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834,
7
843 (9th Cir. 1986). On the whole, the balance of factors in this case favors transfer to the
8
Northern District of Texas.
9
Convenience and Fairness.
The private convenience and fairness factors include the convenience of parties and
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
A.
witnesses, the ability of the court to compel witnesses, the ease of access to evidence, and the
12
plaintiff’s choice of forum. Decker Coal Co., 805 F.2d at 843. Here, the convenience of parties
13
and witnesses favors transfer and outweighs the minimal deference afforded to plaintiffs’ choice
14
in forum.
15
The first factor, the convenience of parties and witnesses, favors transfer to Texas
16
because defendants, their witnesses, one named plaintiff, and a significant number of putative
17
class members all reside in Texas. Plaintiffs’ contention that these details individually bear little
18
weight is unpersuasive.
19
Our defendants indisputably reside in Texas (Adams Decl. ¶¶ 10, 25). Additionally,
20
defendants have identified eight specific corporate executives who develop and oversee the
21
policies underlying plaintiffs’ claims for relief, all of whom also reside in Texas (Adams Decl.
22
¶¶ 2, 12–15, 25–26). Plaintiffs reply that defendants fail to classify those executives as
23
witnesses or describe the content and relevance of their potential testimony with requisite
24
specificity. Moreover, plaintiffs reply that the witnesses are employees of defendants and so
25
their convenience should be afforded less weight regardless of the content of their testimony
26
(Opp. at 16–17) (Dkt. No. 39). This order disagrees.
27
28
In its supporting declarations, Stevens Transport identifies the names, relevancy, and
location of eight persons with personal knowledge of Stevens Transport’s policies affecting truck
4
1
drivers (Adams Decl. ¶¶ 2, 12–15, 25–26). True, Stevens Transport can direct its employees to
2
testify elsewhere and that reduces the weight given to their convenience, but that inconvenience
3
of doing so still matters.
4
Plaintiffs’ say they “intend to call numerous witnesses who likely reside in California”
5
but fail to name any particular California witness (Opp. at 15). Plaintiff Parr names one
6
employee of Stevens Transport that Parr trained with and whom Parr “believe[s] . . . currently
7
lives in Southern California” (Parr Decl. ¶ 11). Plaintiffs’ only other reference to anyone with
8
any connection to California is of receiving agents at drop yards and cashiers at fueling
9
establishments. This lack of specificity does little to show that witness convenience favors
California. None of the named plaintiffs can even “recall any of the names of these individuals”
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
despite having collectively made over 400 pick-ups and drop-offs in various California cities
12
(Parr Decl. ¶ 6; Parr Exh. A; Castle Decl. ¶ 9; Castle Exh. A; Vines Decl. ¶ 10; Vines Exh. A)
13
(Dkt. No. 39).
14
Texas appears to be more convenient for plaintiffs. One of the three named plaintiffs
15
lives in Texas and none of them live in California (Amd. Compl. ¶¶ 11, 14, 17). Texas is also
16
home to approximately one-third of the putative class, while California is home to less than one
17
percent. Although firm numbers do not exist at this early stage, Stevens Transport offers a
18
snapshot of the putative class: In 2018, of the 4,424 truck drivers Stevens Transport employed
19
or contracted with, only seventeen were California residents (.38%) while 1,526 were Texas
20
residents (34.49%) (Adams Decl. ¶ 22) (Gilbert Decl. ¶ 10) (Dkt. Nos. 37-1; 37-9).
21
Plaintiffs argue that the location of class members should be afforded little weight
22
because, prior to certification, the final makeup of the class is subject to considerable
23
speculation. Plaintiffs’ argument is bolstered by the fact that Stevens Transport only provides
24
employment statistics for a fraction of the applicable time period and those statistics likewise
25
fail to describe where 65% of the truck drivers reside. No doubt, there is some measure of truth
26
in this observation but the numbers are so lopsided that, even allowing for some error, the
27
trucking companies’ point deserves weight. These numbers show a significant portion of
28
potential class members reside in Texas, not California. Taken together with the location of
5
1
named plaintiffs and defense witnesses, the convenience of the parties and witnesses weighs in
2
favor of transfer to the Northern District of Texas.
3
As to ease of access to evidence, this factor weighs neither for nor against transfer.
4
Stevens Transport stores the financial and administrative records that are relevant to this action
5
electronically (Adams Decl. ¶ 2). So, there is little burden to transport any evidence to this
6
district.
a heavy burden to overcome the plaintiff’s chosen forum, but where, as here, “an individual . . .
9
represents a class, the named plaintiff’s choice of forum is given less weight.” Lou v. Belzberg,
10
834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987). In such circumstances, the amount of weight to be accorded
11
For the Northern District of California
The plaintiffs’ choice of forum also holds little weight here. A defendant usually carries
8
United States District Court
7
to plaintiffs’ choice of forum depends on the extent of the parties’ contacts with the chosen
12
venue, including those relating to plaintiffs’ claim for relief. Pac. Car & Foundry Co. v. Pence,
13
403 F.2d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 1968).
14
Plaintiffs contend that Stevens Transport has extensive contacts with the forum state as
15
it regularly conducts business in California and it required plaintiffs and other drivers to perform
16
work within California. Moreover, plaintiffs’ claims arise directly from these local contacts
17
and are based on the state law of the chosen district (Opp. at 14–15). These contacts are not
18
insubstantial. Instead, plaintiffs’ own contacts with the forum are dubious. None of the named
19
plaintiffs reside in California, let alone in this district, and consequently none will be “deprived
20
of the presumed advantages of [their] home jurisdiction.” Koster v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.,
21
330 U.S. 518, 524 (1947). Additionally, a substantial majority of the putative class members
22
reside outside of California while approximately one-third of them live in Texas. Taken with the
23
representative nature of this action, plaintiffs’ initial choice of forum is entitled to only minimal
24
deference.
25
B.
Interest of Justice.
26
A district court deciding a motion to transfer must also consider public-interest factors
27
such as relative degrees of court congestion, local interest in deciding localized controversies,
28
6
1
and familiarity with governing law. Decker Coal Co., 805 F.2d at 843. Here, the public-interest
2
factors weigh only slightly against transfer.
3
To start, Stevens Transport seeks judicial notice of three exhibits under Rule 201(b)(2)
4
(Dkt. No. 38). Rule 201(b)(2) provides that the court may “judicially notice a fact that is not
5
subject to reasonable dispute because it . . . can be accurately and readily determined from
6
sources whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned.” Our court of appeals recently
7
held information made publicly available by government entities, that neither party
8
disputes the authenticity or accuracy of, as appropriate for judicial notice under Rule 201(b)(2).
9
Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998–99 (9th Cir. 2019). Here, the first exhibit
requested has been made publicly available by government entities through a website link.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Neither party disputes the authenticity of the website or the accuracy of the information
12
displayed by the document. Thus, the document, date, and information contained therein as
13
available to the recipient is appropriate for judicial notice. To this limited extent, the request for
14
judicial notice of the first exhibit is GRANTED. As this order does not rely on the other two
15
exhibits, the request to judicially notice those exhibits is DENIED AS MOOT.
16
The noticed exhibit shows that court congestion in the respective districts is similar.
17
During the twelve-month period ending in March 2019, the median time from filing to
18
disposition of civil actions was 7.9 months in this district and 7.0 months in the Northern District
19
of Texas. During the same period, this district had 725 total pending cases per active judge
20
while the Northern District of Texas had 1,327 total pending cases per active judge, indicating
21
slightly less congestion in this district. Federal Court Management Statistics (March 31, 2018),
22
www.uscourts.gov/report-name/federal-court-management-statistics. This factor therefore
23
neither weighs for nor against transfer.
24
Plaintiffs’ best point is that this case presents an issue of legitimate importance to
25
California, namely the extent to which out-of-state drivers can benefit from California’s labor
26
laws when they drive through our state. California has an interest in making sure its laws are
27
observed for work done in California, even if it is only a brief span in a long over-the-road haul.
28
And here, plaintiffs seek to represent two classes of drivers solely for their work done in
7
1
California. If this interest were enough to overcome the other factors, then every nationwide
2
trucking company would find themselves in all fifty states defending against similar lawsuits.
3
While this district is more familiar with California law, the excellent judges in Dallas can apply
4
California law, and can appreciate and vindicate California’s interest in the matter. What’s
5
more, if the case must resolve an issue of California law, the decision may be appealed to the
6
Fifth Circuit which may then certify the question to the California Supreme Court, just as our
7
court of appeals can. Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.548.
District of Texas. Although plaintiffs’ choice in forum still carries some weight, and California
10
does have an interest in this matter, defendants have met their burden. Accordingly, defendants’
11
For the Northern District of California
Viewing the totality of the factors, this order finds that this case belongs in the Northern
9
United States District Court
8
motion to transfer the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is GRANTED.
12
CONCLUSION
13
The Clerk shall transfer this civil action to the United States District Court for the
14
Northern District of Texas and close the file. The parties’ stipulation to change the hearing date
15
and continue the case management conference is DENIED AS MOOT. With respect to the motion
16
to compel arbitration, only partially briefed at this point, both sides shall please consult with the
17
new district judge in Dallas concerning its future.
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
21
Dated: October 7, 2019.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
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?