Marshall et al v. Alpha & Omega Transit Network, Inc.

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: Further input from plaintiffs' counsel is called for, else a transfer to the Central District pursuant to Section 1406(a) would have to be considered. Plaintiffs' counsel are ordered to provide the necessary input on or before October 27, 2015. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 10/20/2015:Mailed notice(clw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

JOHN MARSHALL, LAWRENCE GATES
and EARL HENSLEY, on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ALPHA & OMEGA TRANSIT
NETWORK, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15 C 9243

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Three ex-employees of Alpha & Omega Transit Network, Inc. ("Alpha & Omega") have
filed a putative statewide collective action against it under the Fair Labor Standards Act, coupled
with a putative statewide class action charging violations of the Illinois Minimum Wage Act.
This action has been assigned to this Court's calendar under the computerized random
assignment system in effect in this District Court.
As always, this Court has promptly reviewed the Complaint in this action, and one
problematic aspect of the filing has figuratively jumped off the pages of the Complaint and
struck this Court's eye. Although jurisdictional problems are most frequently the subject of this
Court's threshold sua sponte opinions, in this instance the question is one of proper venue
instead.
Complaint ¶ 5 alleges that Alpha & Omega "was and still is a private domestic
corporation with its headquarters in Decatur, Illinois" -- and of course Decatur is in Macon

County, a part of the Central District and not the Northern District of this state. Indeed, as
Complaint ¶ 2 alleges:
Plaintiffs Earle Hensley, Lawrence Gates and John Marshall were employed by
Defendant as drivers in Defendant's Decatur, Illinois office. Defendant has three
offices in the state of Illinois serving central Illinois.
All other locational allegations in the Complaint are consistent with that. For example,
Complaint ¶ 5 quotes this Alpha & Omega description of its own business in its website:
We provide the region's lowest-cost flat rate driving service and we’re available
for any medical provider. We transport health insurance patients on a flat low rate
which enables medical providers to cut costs and achieve better results.
We provide a highly personalized, patient centered medical service transportation
via a centralized dispatch system.
Our professional drivers transport patients to dialysis, physical therapy or routine
doctor’s appointments and back to the patient's residence for a flat low-cost rate.
That is strongly indicative of a localized business and is further confirmed by the examples of
Alpha & Omega's driver service set out in Complaint ¶ 13:
In addition, the Defendant did not pay its drivers when they were forced to wait
for their next assignment while they were out on the road. For example, if
Plaintiff Marshall transported a patient from Decatur to Springfield, he was
typically required to wait in Springfield for his next assignment. If that
assignment required him to wait three hours before making a trip from Springfield
to Bloomington, Mr. Marshall was "off the clock" until he started driving to
Bloomington and he was not paid for his off the clock time.
All of that being so, it is surprising that the Complaint's allegations as to venue point to
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c) alone. 1 As to the first of those subsections, it certainly appears that

1

All further references to Title 28's provisions will simply take the form "Section --,"
omitting the prefatory "28 U.S.C. §."

-2-

only the first of its subparts fits the situation described in the Complaint, for Alpha & Omega is
an Illinois resident (whether it resides in this judicial district is discussed hereafter):
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are
residents of the State in which the district is located.
But it would seem that the more specific terms of Section 1391(d), rather than the generic
provisions of Section 1391(c), apply here:
Residency of corporations in States with multiple districts. -- For purposes of
venue under this chapter, in a State which has more than one judicial district and
in which a defendant that is a corporation is subject to personal jurisdiction at the
time an action is commenced, such corporation shall be deemed to reside in any
district in that State within which its contacts would be sufficient to subject it to
personal jurisdiction if that district were a separate State, and, if there is no such
district, the corporation shall be deemed to reside in the district within which it
has the most significant contacts.
Under that last-quoted subsection, with Illinois having more than one judicial district and
with Alpha & Omega being subject to personal jurisdiction in this state, it appears from Alpha &
Omega's own allegations that the only one of Illinois' three judicial districts in which its
"contacts would be sufficient to subject it to personal jurisdiction if that district were a separate
State" is the Central District of Illinois, and not this Northern District of Illinois. Under those
circumstances further input from plaintiffs' counsel is called for, else a transfer to the Central
District pursuant to Section 1406(a) would have to be considered. Plaintiffs' counsel are ordered
to provide the necessary input in that respect on or before October 27, 2015.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: October 20, 2015

-3-