MOBLEY v. ADP SCREENING AND SELECTION SERVICES, INC.

Filing 19

OPINION. Signed by Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh on 1/30/13. (dc, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
PACIA MOBLEY
Plaintiff.
Hon. Dennis M. Cavanaugh
OPINION
ADP SCREENING AND SELECTION
SERVICES, INC. AND AUTOMATIC
DATA PROCESSING INC.,

:

Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-04882 (DMC’)(JAD)

Defendants.

DENNIS M. CAVANAUGTI, U.S,DJ.:
This matter comes before the Court upon motion by Defendants ADP Screening and
Selection Services, Inc. (“SASS”) and Automatic Data Processing. Inc. (“ADP”) (collectively
‘Defendants”) for transfer of venue to the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§

1404(a). (Defs.’ Mot. to Transfer. Oct. 26. 2012, ECF No. 9).

Pursuant to FED. R. Civ. P. 78, no oral argument was heard, After considering the submissions

of all parties, it is the decision of this Court for the reasons herein expressed that Defendants’
Motion to Transfer Venue is granted.
I.

BAcKGRouND

In or about July 2011, Plaintiff applied for an insurance adjustor position with Reliable

Reports of Texas, Inc. (“Reliable”). (Am. Compl.

1

papers.

¶ 7, Sept.

18, 2012, ECF No, 5). Plaintiff was

The facts set—forth in this Opinion are taken from the Parties’ statements in their respective moving

provisionally hired, and was provided a July 2011 date to begin employment.

(JL at l

8).

Reliable requested and Defendants sold to Reliable a consumer report concerning Plaintiff, to he
utilized for employment purposes.

(JL at ¶ 9).

Plaintiff alleges that the consumer report

contained information that was likely to have an adverse effect on Plaintiffs general employment
prospects. and Plaintiffs employment with Reliable specifically.

(Ii at ‘11).

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants reported derogatory and inaccurate statements and
inlbrmation relating to Plaintiff and Plaintiffs record to third parties.

(i at ¶

12). The alleged

inaccurate information includes a 1997 felony charge of possession. manufacture. and
distribution of marijuana, which Plaintiff asserts was a misdemeanor possession plea.

(I at

12). According to Plaintiff, the inaccurate information negatively reflects upon the Plaintiff and
paints him as a ‘serious felony criminal.”

( at ¶

14). Further, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants

failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of the
information they reported about the Plaintifl and as a result. Plaintiff
employment as an insurance adjustor.”

as subsequently denied

(. at 7115-18).

Plaintiff contends that Defendants never sent a notice letter as required by 15 U.S.C.

§

1681 k(a)(1). (jj at ¶ 16). Additionally, Plaintiff contends that Defendants do not maintain
strict procedures designed to ensure that the public records information reported are complete
and up-to-date. in accordance with 15 U.S.C.

§

1681k(a)(2).

(i at ¶

17). Plaintiff alleges that

as a result of Defendants’ conduct, he has suffered actual damages in the form of lost

employment opportunities, harm to reputation, and emotional distress, including humiliation and
embarrassment. (Id. at

¶

19).

Plaintiff adds SASS’s parent corporation, Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (“ADP”) as a
,

Defendant in the Amended Complaint, labeling it as a consumer reporting agency.

(id. at

6).

Defendants contend that ADP does not generate or transmit consumer reports hut is simply “a
corporate parent of numerous operating subsidiaries like SASS” with its principle place of
business in Roseland, New Jersey. (Def. s Br. at 4). According to Defendants. SASS is the only
‘

company of the family owned by ADP that engages in the marketing, compilation, or transmittal
of consumer reports.

( at 5).

Defendants assert that, during the period relevant to the

Amended Complaint, SASS headquarters and center of operations were in two offices in Fort
Collins, Colorado, (Id.)
i)efendant alleges that SASS never had operated in Tev Jersey and produces no
consumer reports there and the consumer report referred to in the Amended Complaint was
produced in Fort Collins. (j) Defendant further alleges that the consumer report in question
was electronically transmitted to Plaintiff’s prospective employer, Reliable, from Fort Collins.

(Id.) In addition, SASS’s records, filed and computer server are located in Colorado. (j)
Chiefly. Defendants contend that none of the operations involved in generating and
transmitting consumer reports were performed in New Jersey

either by SASS or ADP. (j at

6), Defendants contend that, insofar as SASS has identified its principal place of business as
being in New Jersey, this is done only pursuant to a policy applied by ADP to its small
subsidiaries, whose headquarters are remote from ADP’s headquarters and do not have legal
counsel assigned to their headquarters location.

(I..

at 6). Defendants contend that the policy

was not meant to affect SASS operations center of gravity in Fort Collins and has thus moved to

transfer venue to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado pursuant to 28
U.S.C.

§

1404(a).

II.

MoTior TO TRANSFER

A. IegaI Standard
In relevant part. 28 U.S.C.A.

§

1404(a) states, “for the convenience ofparties and witnesses,

in the interest of justice. a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district where it
ma have been brought.” Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A.

§

1391(a). venue is proper “in a civil action

wherein jurisdiction is founded only on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided
bylaw, be brought only in (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside
in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving

rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated,
or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the
action is commenced, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.”
In construing the statutory language of28 U,S,C.A,

§

1404(a), the Third Circuit has pointed

out that “commentators have called on the courts to consider all relevant factors to determine
whether on balance the litigation would more conveniently proceed and the interests of justice be
better served by transfer to a different forum.” Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F. 3d 873, 879 (3d
Cir., 1 995). As enumerated by the Jumara Court.
There are a number of relevant private and public factors a court should consider
In deciding a motion to transfer. The private factors include: (I) plaintiff’s choice
of forum; (2) defendant’s preference; (3) whether the claim arose elsewhere: (4) the
convenience of the parties as indicated by their relative physical and financial
conditions; (5) the convenience of witnesses, only to the extent that they may be
unavailable for trial in one of the fora; and (6) the location of books and records,
again only to the extent that they could not be produced in one of the fora, The
4

public interests include: (1) enforceability of the judgment; (2) practical
considerations that could make the trial easy, expeditious. or inexpensive: (3)
relative administrative difficulties in the two fora resulting from court congestion:
(4) local interests in deciding local controversies at home: (5) public policies of the
fora; and (6) the familiarity of the trial judge with the applicable state law in
diversity cases, jçj at 879-880
In analyzing the third factor, the Court is specifically instructed to consider the situation
“where the central facts of a lawsuit occur outside the chosen forum.” In re Consolidated
Pailodel Litigation, 22 F Supp 2d 320 323 (D N 1 1998)

fhe presumption favonng a

plainti ITs choice of h)rum is not dispositive. See Tischio v. Bontex. Inc. 16 F.Supp.2d
511, 521 (D.N.J. 1998). Additionally, a plaintiffs choice is afforded less deference when
their choice of forum “has little connection with the operative facts of the lawsuit” ij. at
521.
B

Discussion

In examining Plaintiffs choice of forum and balancing that against the other
considerations, the Court acknowledges the burden of demonstrating that transfer of venue
would be appropriate according to the factors specified by the Third Circuit and pursuant
to

§

1 404(a) lies with Defendant. Although Plaintiff initially brought this action in New

Jersey, and clearly prefers that this Court retain jurisdiction, it is clear that the events that
gave rise to this cause of action occurred in the District of Colorado.
“The paramount private interest factor is the plaintiffs choice of forum. However, the
deference given to a plaintiffs choice of forum is reduced when the operative facts that give
rise to the action occur in another district.” See Ortiz v. Standard & Poor s. 2010 LS. l)ist.
LEXIS 119420. at *6..g (D.N.J.

Nov. 10, 2010) (internal citations omitted).

5

SASS

produced the consumer report at issue in this litigation in Fort Collins, Colorado. (Defs.’
Br. 5). The consumer report was electronically transmitted to Plaintiffs prospective
employer. Reliable, from Fort Collins.
were involved in

generating and

(icL) More importantly, none of the operations that

transmitting consumer reports

were performed in New

Jersey either by SASS or ADP, (ii) This Court agrees with Defendants in that Colorado
—

is the “center of gravity” of the claims.
The next set of factors, the convenience of the parties and potential witnesses, and the
location of evidence germane to the dispute, also weighs in favor of transfer. New Jersey
is nearly two thousand miles from Colorado, making the distance and expense of travel very
burdensome. The witnesses who would be able to testify
practices and procedures as they specifically relate

to

as to

knowledge of SASS’

the consumer report at issue would

be employees in Fort Collins. In addition, all communications related to the consumer
report

were revolved around Fort Collins. Further, SASS’s records, files and computer

server containing data are located in Fort Collins. The fact that the underlying events that
gave rise to this cause of action took place in Colorado overwhelmingly favors the United

States District Court for the District of Colorado as the appropriate venue for the fair and
complete adjudication of this matter.
As to the public factors that the Court must consider. the Court finds that practical

considerations support transfer, Although a judgment would be enforceable as rendered
fi’om either District, this Court finds that litigation of the case and trial (if necessary) will
be less burdensome, more expeditious and less expensive if it

were

to take place in the

District of Colorado. The ease of access to sources of proof is greater in Colorado because
6

the witnesses and the source of generating the consumer reports related to this matter are
in SASS’s possession in Colorado. In consideration of court congestion, the larger number
of pending cases in New Jersey as compared to Colorado supports transfer. In addition, ‘the
location where the claim arose is also a public interest factor because local judges andjuries
are preferred arbiters or events in their jurisdiction and community.” LO Flecs. lnc.v. First

mt

i Computei 138 F Supp 2d 574 592 (D N 12001) (citmg Gull Coip

Gilbert 30

U.S. 501, 511 (1947)). As discussed above, the subject of the claim is a consumer report
that was produced in Colorado. Upon consideration of all relevant factors. this Court tinds
that transfer to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado is appropriate.
III.

CoNcLusioN

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to transfer to
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado is granted.

N4. Cavanaugh.
cc:

All Counsel of Record
Hon. J. A. Dickson, U.S.M.J.
File

7