Rosinbaum et al v. Flowers Foods, Inc. et al
Filing
39
ORDER granting 19 Motion to Change Venue. This matter shall be immediately transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Southern Division. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 6/8/16. (mga)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-CV-581-MOC-DCK
BOBBY JO ROSINBAUM, and
MORGAN WILLIAM ROBERT,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FLOWERS FOODS, INC., and
FRANKLIN BAKING CO., LLC,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Defendants’ Motion To Transfer
Venue” (Document No. 19). This motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and immediate review is appropriate. Having carefully considered
the motion, the record, and applicable authority, the undersigned will grant the pending motion.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Bobby Jo Rosinbaum (“Rosinbaum”) and Robert William Morgan, Jr.
(“Morgan”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) initiated this action with the filing of a “Class And
Collective Action Complaint” (Document No. 1) (the “Complaint”) on December 1, 2015. The
Complaint contends that Franklin Baking Co., LLC (“Franklin”) and Flowers Foods, Inc.
(“Flowers”) (collectively “Defendants”) have misclassified “their North Carolina bakery
distributor drivers (“Distributors”) as “independent contractors.”
(Document No. 1, p.1).
Specifically, the Complaint asserts claims for: violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
(the “FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.; declaratory judgment; violation of the North Carolina
Wage and Hour Act (“NCWHA”), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-25.1, et seq.; and violation of the North
Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“UDTPA”), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1.
(Document No. 1). Defendants Flowers and Franklin each filed an “Answer And Additional
Defenses…” (Document Nos. 13 and 15) on February 8, 2016.
On February 29, 2016, “Defendants’ Motion To Transfer Venue” (Document No. 19) and
“Memorandum Of Law In Support…” (Document No. 20) were filed. Defendants seek transfer
to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Southern Division
(“Eastern District”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404(a). “Plaintiffs’ Memorandum In Opposition To
Defendants’ Motion To Transfer Venue” (Document No. 36) was filed on March 17, 2016; and
“Defendants’ Reply…” (Document No. 38) was filed March 28, 2016.
The pending motion is now ripe for review and disposition.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Regarding a change of venue, 28 U.S.C. § 1404 provides that:
For the convenience of 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 or to any
district or division to which all parties have consented.
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In addition, previous decisions by this Court are instructive.
Even if venue in a jurisdiction is proper, a court may “for the
convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice,”
transfer the action to another district where venue is proper. 28
U.S.C. § 1404(a) (2006). This court has noted that § 1404(a) is
intended to place discretion in the district court to adjudicate
motions for transfer on an “individualized, case-by-case basis” of
convenience and fairness to the parties. AC Controls Co. v.
Pomeroy Computer Res., Inc., 284 F.Supp.2d 357, 360 (W.D.N.C.
2003) (quoting Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29,
108 S.Ct. 2239, 2243 (1988)).
McLeod Addictive Disease Center, Inc. v. Wildata Systems Group, Inc., 3:08-CV-27-GCM 2008
WL 2397614, at *1 (W.D.N.C. June 10, 2008). “The Court emphasizes that the applicable law
2
contemplates that a court’s decision to transfer or not transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is
largely discretionary.” 3A Composites USA, Inc. v. United Industries, Inc., 5:13cv083-RLV, 2014
WL 1471075, at *1 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 15, 2014).
When considering a motion to transfer, courts should consider,
among other things, eleven factors: 1) the plaintiff’s choice of
forum, 2) the residence of the parties, 3) access to evidence, 4) the
availability of compulsory process for witnesses and the costs of
transporting and obtaining those witnesses, 5) the possibility of a
view by the jury, 6) the enforceability of a judgment, 7) the relative
advantages and obstacles to a fair trial, 8) practical issues affecting
trial expediency and efficiency, 9) the relative court congestion
between the districts, 10) the interest of resolving localized
controversies at home and the appropriateness of having the trial of
a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the state law that
must govern the action, and 11) the avoidance of conflict of laws.
Id. at 96. The factors are accorded different weights based on the
court’s discretion. Id.
Nutrition & Fitness, Inc. v. Blue Stuff, Inc., 264 F.Supp.2d 357, 362 (W.D.N.C. 2003) (citing Jim
Crockett Promotions, Inc. v. Action Media Group, Inc., 751 F.Supp. 93, 95 (W.D.N.C. 1990));
see also, Cohen v. ZL Technologies, Inc., 3:14cv377-FDW-DSC, 2015 WL 93732, at *1-2
(W.D.N.C. Jan. 7, 2015).
DISCUSSION
A.
Factual Background
Defendants and their subsidiaries and affiliates are in the wholesale bakery business and
rely on Distributors to deliver to and stock baked goods in grocery stores, mass retailers, and fast
food chains. (Document No. 1, p.1). Plaintiffs challenge Defendants’ classification of Distributors
as independent contractors, and the denial of the rights, obligations, privileges, and benefits,
including overtime compensation, owed to them as employees under state and federal laws.
(Document No. 1, p.2).
3
Plaintiffs filed this Complaint as a class action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23. (Document
No. 1, p.12). Plaintiffs note that a Rule 23 Class was certified in Rehberg et al. v. Flowers Foods,
Inc. and Flowers Baking Co. of Jamestown, LLC, No. 3:12-cv-49-MOC-DSC (W.D.N.C. March
23, 2015), but that defendants in that case have taken the position that the class is limited to
distributors operating out of Flowers Baking Co. of Jamestown. (Document No. 1, p.12, n.2).
“Plaintiffs bring the instant Complaint to ensure that the Rule 23 Class encompasses all distributors
who worked for the Defendants in North Carolina within the applicable time limits.” Id.
Plaintiff Rosinbaum is a resident of Pender County, North Carolina, works as a Distributor
for Defendant Flowers, and operates out of a distribution center run by Defendant Franklin in
Wilmington, North Carolina. (Document No. 1, p.2). Plaintiff Morgan is a resident of New
Hanover County, North Carolina, works as a Distributor for Defendant Flowers, and also operates
out of a distribution center run by Defendant Franklin in Wilmington, North Carolina. (Document
No. 1, p.3).
Defendant Flowers is a Georgia corporation with its principal place of business in
Thomasville, Georgia. (Document No. 1, p.3). Defendant Franklin is a North Carolina corporation
with its principal place of business in Goldsboro, North Carolina. Id.
Plaintiffs contend that “[v]enue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391.”
(Document No. 1, p.4). However, Plaintiffs do not allege that either Defendant is a resident of the
Western District of North Carolina (“Western District”); that a substantial part of the events,
omissions, and/or property giving rise to these claims is situated in the Western District; or that
there is no district in which this action could otherwise have been brought as provided in 28 U.S.C.
1391. See (Document No. 1); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b).
4
B.
Venue Analysis
Both sides recognize that the Court must weigh eleven (11) case-specific factors, and that
a court’s decision on whether to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is largely discretionary.
(Document No. 19, p.2; Document No. 36, p.6). The factors to be considered in deciding whether
to allow a change of venue are well-established, as set forth in the standard of review above. The
undersigned weighs these factors as set forth below.
1. Plaintiffs’ initial choice of forum
In most cases, the plaintiff’s choice of forum should be given significant weight, and should
not be disturbed unless the balance is strongly in favor of transfer. Celgard, LLC v. LG Chem,
Ltd., 3:14-cv-043-MOC-DCK, 2015 WL 2412467, at *6 (W.D.N.C. May 21, 2015) (citing Collins
v. Straight, Inc., 748 F.2d 916, 921 (4th Cir. 1984)). However, “that weight is diminished when
the conduct giving rise to the complaint did not occur in the forum.” Id. at *8 (citing Hames v.
Morton Salt, Inc., 3:11-cv-570–MOC–DSC, 2012 WL 1247201, at *2 (W.D.N.C. Apr.13, 2012)).
Defendants first argue that “the Court owes no deference to Plaintiffs’ choice of forum
because their claims have no substantial relationship with this District.” (Document No. 20, p.9).
Defendants note that there are no factual allegations linking this matter to the Western District, or
establishing the propriety of venue here. Id. In addition, Defendants contend that “numerous
courts have held that a plaintiff’s choice of forum is afforded even less deference when, as here,
he or she seeks to represent a group of individuals in a putative class or collective action.”
(Document No. 20, pp.11-12) (citations omitted).
In response, Plaintiffs state that they chose this forum because it is more efficient to litigate
this case in the District where Rehberg et al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and Flowers Baking Co. of
Jamestown, LLC, No. 3:12-cv-49-MOC-DSC (“Rehberg”) is pending. (Document No. 36 p.10).
5
Plaintiffs contend that because they have chosen a forum in which a related action is pending, their
choice “should be given substantial deference.” Id.
Although Plaintiffs’ brief cites this Court’s decision in Celgard, Plaintiffs appear to ignore
the holding that the weight given a plaintiff’s choice of forum is diminished if the conduct giving
rise to the complaint did not occur there. Id. See also Celgard, 2015 WL 2412467, at *6. Plaintiffs
do not allege that any of the conduct giving rise to their Complaint occurred in the Western District.
Id. In contrast, Defendants make a compelling argument that the only district with a substantial
relationship to the claims in this case is the Eastern District. (Document No. 20; Document No.
38, p.3).
Under these circumstances, Plaintiffs’ choice of forum is entitled to less weight than might
generally be accorded a plaintiff’s choice of forum. The undersigned weighs this factor as neutral.
2. Residence of the parties
It is undisputed that Plaintiffs both reside in the Eastern District, and that Defendant
Franklin’s principal place of business is in the Eastern District. (Document No. 20, p.12;
Document No. 36, p.11). However, Plaintiffs suggest that this factor should be given less weight
because the parties and/or witnesses would only be required to travel “to a nearby or adjacent
district.” (Document No. 36, p.11) (quoting Kyle v. McDougall, 2014 WL 4728816, at *6
(E.D.N.C. Sept. 23, 2014) (“this case involves transfer of venue to a district and division directly
adjacent to this district, further minimizing convenience as a factor in the venue analysis”).
In reply, Defendants correctly note that the Western District and the Eastern District are
not adjacent, they are separated by the Middle District of North Carolina. (Document No. 38, p.6).
Moreover, the locations at issue are unlikely to be considered “nearby.” Id. Travel between
6
Charlotte, and locations in the Eastern District such as Wilmington and Goldsboro, is not
convenient and would likely place a significant burden on participants in this lawsuit.
The undersigned weighs this factor in favor of transfer.
3. Access to evidence
Defendants argue that evidence relevant to this case, including documents, physical
evidence, corporate witnesses, and third party witnesses, is located in the Eastern District.
(Document No. 20, pp.12-13).
Plaintiffs acknowledge that some sources of proof are located in the Eastern District, but
assert that many documents will come from Defendant Flowers, headquartered in Georgia.
(Document No. 36, p.12). Plaintiffs go on to recognize that because documents are available
electronically, the location of relevant documents is of minimal concern. Id. In addition, Plaintiffs
argue that many of Flowers’ witnesses will be required to travel from other parts of the country,
and that counsel “is more than able to travel the relatively short distance to the Eastern District to
depose employees of Franklin.” (Document No. 36, pp.12-13).
Defendants reply brief observes that Plaintiffs have not identified a single document or
other piece of evidence located in the Western District, but have conceded substantial documentary
evidence exists in the Eastern District. (Document No. 38, p.7).
The undersigned finds Defendants’ arguments persuasive. This factor is weighed in favor
of transfer.
4. Availability of compulsory process for witnesses and the costs of transporting and
obtaining those witnesses
Defendants argue that this is a “key” factor that heavily favors transfer. (Document No.
20, pp.13-14) (citing M-Tek Kiosk, Inc. v. Gosnell, 2015 WL 5796830, at *8 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 2,
2015). Defendants contend that “Plaintiffs, Franklin decision makers, and other Franklin witnesses
7
(including close to 30 current members of management) reside for the most part in the Eastern
District.” (Document No. 20, p.13).
The undersigned observes that like this case, the Court in M-Tek found that the Complaint
did not assert any underlying events occurred in the Western District, and found that most
witnesses, including non-party witnesses, were more likely to be found in the district proposed for
transfer. M-Tek, 2015 WL 5796830, at *2, *8. In M-Tek, the Court found analysis of the relevant
factors favored transfer to the Middle District of North Carolina, even though it is an adjacent
district. Id.
Plaintiffs argue that in order for this factor to carry weight, Defendants must generally
identify a witness outside the Court’s subpoena power who would be unwilling to submit to a
deposition or travel for a deposition. (Document No. 36, p.14) (citing Celgard, 2015 WL 2412467,
at *10). Plaintiffs further argue, without identifying, that there are likely to be witnesses in this
case found around the country. Id. Finally, Plaintiffs express their counsel’s willingness to travel
to witnesses unable to appear in the Western District. Id.
In reply, Defendants also cite the Celgard decision:
“[t]he convenience of witnesses, particularly nonparty witnesses
important to the resolution of the case, is often cited as the most
significant factor in ruling on a motion to transfer ... One strong
argument against transfer is that the original forum will be the most
convenient for the witnesses. And when transfer will better serve
the convenience of the witnesses, the motion under Section
1404(a) is more likely to be granted.” 15 Charles Alan Wright &
Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3851 (4th ed.)
(Document No. 38, p.10) (quoting Celgard, 2015 WL 2412467, at *10) (emphasis added) (citations
omitted). Defendants argue that potential in-state fact witnesses include the named Plaintiffs,
potential opt-in plaintiffs, non-party distributor witnesses, Franklin employees, and other third
parties – all located in the Eastern District. (Document No. 38, p.11). Defendants contend that
8
most witnesses would be required to travel 200-300 miles for a trial or other appearances in the
Western District.
Id.
“Given that the parties anticipate any trial in this matter will take
approximately 21 days, this burden is likely to impact a significant number of witnesses.” Id.
(citing Document No. 21, p.8).
In addition, Defendants’ reply brief identifies five (5) potential non-party witnesses, and
attaches a declaration from each. (Document No. 38, pp.12-13), see also (Document Nos. 38-2 –
38-6). In short, these potential witnesses all describe the significant inconvenience they will likely
face if this matter proceeds in the Western District. Id.
Plaintiffs do not identify any witnesses, or evidence, located in the Western District.
(Document No. 36, pp.12-14).
Based on the information before the Court, the undersigned is convinced that transfer will
better serve the convenience of the likely witnesses in this case. As such, this key factor weighs
in favor of transfer.
5. Possibility of a view by the jury
The parties agree that in the event of a trial, it is unlikely a jury would need to view
Franklin’s bakeries or distribution centers, or any customer facilities. (Document No. 20, p.14;
Document No. 36, p.15). However, Defendant argues that the Franklin bakery is more than 200
miles from Charlotte, and even though a view is unlikely, this factor still favors transfer.
(Document No. 20, p.14) (citing Zurich American Ins. Co. v. ACE American Ins. Co., 3:10-cv101-RJC-DCK, 2010 WL 5014512, at *5 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 3, 2010) and 3A Composites USA, Inc.
v. United Indus., Inc., 5:13-cv-083, 2013 WL 5536937, at *7 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 4, 2013)).
The undersigned is persuaded this factor slightly favors transfer.
6. Enforceability of a judgment
9
The undersigned cannot foresee, and the parties have not identified, any concerns about the
enforcement of a judgment. This factor is weighed as neutral.
7. Relative advantages and obstacles to a fair trial
The undersigned does not foresee, and the parties do not suggest, that there are any clear
advantages or obstacles to a fair trial in either district. The parties should obtain a fair trial in
either North Carolina court. As such, the undersigned finds this factor is neutral.
8. Practical issues affecting trial expediency and efficiency
“Trials are never easy, expeditious, or inexpensive.” Century Furniture, LLC v. C & C
Imports, Inc., 1:07cv179-DLH, 2007 WL 2712955, at * 5 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 14, 2007). Whatever
this Court decides, there will be some travel and inconvenience.
Defendants contend that the expense, inconvenience, and logistical challenges associated
with transporting witnesses from the Eastern District to the Western District, in the event of a trial
or hearing, favor transfer. (Document No. 20, p.15).
Plaintiffs contend that judicial economy is encompassed by this factor and that it is decisive
in this case. (Document No. 36, p.7). Specifically, Plaintiffs assert that this factor weighs strongly
against transfer because Judge Cogburn is “intimately familiar with the facts underlying the
relationship between Distributors, Flowers, and Flowers subsidiaries.” (Document No. 36, p.8).
Plaintiffs contend that Judge Cogburn’s familiarity is a key factor in the judicial economy analysis.
Id. (citing Rehberg; and Kyle, 2014 WL 4728816, at *6). Plaintiffs also contend that keeping
this matter before Judge Cogburn will avoid inconsistent judgments. (Document No. 36, p.9).
In reply, Defendants argue that where parties fail to show that consolidation is “reasonably
likely,” this factor does not weigh in favor of transfer. (Document No. 38, p.15) (citations omitted).
Defendants note that Plaintiffs have not moved to consolidate this case with Rehberg, and do not
10
deny that consolidation would be improper based on the vastly different procedural posture of the
case. Id. Moreover, Defendants contend that key issues turn on the unique factual record of each
case, and that evidence regarding Jamestown and its distributors will be irrelevant to analysis of
the instant case. Id.
Defendants effectively distinguish much of Plaintiffs’ supporting authority, and note a
recent decision rejecting venue before this Court, even though a similar action was also pending
here. (Document No. 38, p.16) (citing Haberman v. Merrill Lynch, 3:14-cv553-FDW, 2014 WL
5489347 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 30, 2014) (“Chief Judge Whitney held that the existence of a similar case
in the Western District did not preclude transfer where ‘none of the relevant factors to be
considered under §1404(a) lead to a reasonable conclusion that the action should proceed in this
district.’”).
While Plaintiffs make a valid point that Judge Cogburn’s familiarity with many of the
issues in this case might support a finding of greater judicial economy if this Court keeps this
matter, they do not argue that the issues are so complex that our distinguished and capable
colleagues in the Eastern District would have any difficulty getting up to speed.
The undersigned further notes that this factor also requires the Court to consider expense
and convenience. As addressed above, the location of the bulk of the evidence, witnesses, and the
underlying events in the Eastern District, suggest that there will be less expense and inconvenience
if this matter is transferred to the Eastern District.
The undersigned will weigh this factor as slightly favoring transfer.
9. Relative court congestion between the districts
Defendants note that while more civil cases have been filed and are pending in the Eastern
District, the median time to disposition is still shorter there than in the Western District.
11
(Document No. 20, p.15) (citing Document No. 19-5). Plaintiffs note that the Eastern District has
490 civil cases per judge and the Western District has 217 civil cases per judge. (Document No.
36, p.16) (citing Document No. 19-5). Plaintiffs also note that 3.9 percent of civil cases are over
three years old in this district, while 16.3 percent of civil cases in the Eastern District are over three
years old. Id.
This factor weighs against transfer.
10. The interest of resolving localized controversies at home and the appropriateness
of having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the state law that
must govern the action
Defendants argue that this factor strongly favors transfer since the Eastern District is where
the primary parties are located, the alleged underlying actions occurred, and where the majority of
the in-state evidence lies. (Document No. 20, p.16). Plaintiffs assert that this factor is neutral
because both districts have an interest in resolution of this case. (Document No. 36, p.16).
The undersigned finds this factor favors transfer.
11. Avoidance of conflict of laws
The parties agree that there is no choice of law issue, and that this factor should be weighed
as neutral. The undersigned agrees.
*
*
*
*
Based on the foregoing, and in accordance with the teachings of Jim Crockett Promotions,
Inc. v. Action Media Group, Inc., the undersigned has conducted a quantitative and qualitative
analysis of the foregoing factors, and finds that a change of venue is appropriate in this case. See
Century Furniture, LLC, 1:07cv179-DLH, 2007 WL 2712955, at *6 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 14, 2007).
In short, Defendants have shown that the factors discussed above favor transfer. Most importantly,
the convenience of potential witnesses and the location of evidence favor transfer. The only real
12
connection Plaintiffs make to this district is that Judge Cogburn is familiar with a similar case.
Judge Cogburn’s familiarity with the issues, and the possibility that the Eastern District’s docket
is slightly more congested, are not sufficient reasons to keep this case here while other factors
favor transfer.
CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Defendants’ Motion To Transfer Venue”
(Document No. 19) is GRANTED. This matter shall be immediately transferred to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Southern Division.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: June 8, 2016
13
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?