Stevens v. USA Today Sports Media Group, LLC et al
Filing
35
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 8 MOTION to Transfer Case Signed by Honorable Julia K Munley on 3/26/24. (sm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MATTHEW STEVENS, individually
and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated,
Plaintiff
No. 1:23cv1367
(Judge Munley)
V.
USA TODAY SPORTS MEDIA
GROUP, LLC and GANNETT CO.,
INC.,
Defendants
............................................................................................................
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
■
•••
■
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
MEMORANDUM
Before the court for disposition is the motion to transfer venue filed by
Defendants USA Today Sports Media Group, LLC and Gannett Co., Inc.
Defendants seek to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division. (Doc. 8). Having been fully
briefed, this matter is ripe for decision. For the reasons explained below, the
court will transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia.
Background
From approximately January 2017 through March 2021, defendants
employed plaintiff as a "Site Editor" for USA Today's "Ravens Wire", a dedicated
team website for the Baltimore Ravens football team. (Doc. 1, ,I 11 ). While
employed as a Site Editor, plaintiff regularly worked approximately seventy (70)
hours per week. (kl ,I 18). He contends that defendants misclassified him as an
independent contractor and denied him, and other Site Editors, minimum wage
and overtime for all hours worked . (kl ,I 59). He seeks unpaid overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 207, ("FLSA"), for himself and
on behalf of the class of defendants' employees similarly situated. (kl ,I ,I 6373). He also seeks payment for all hours worked, including overtime hours,
under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968, 43 PENN. STAT. §
333.104(a) and 34 PA. CODE§ 231 .21(b). (kl ,I,I 74-81).
Plaintiff filed suit in this court, the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania , and the defendants have moved to transfer the case to
the Eastern District of Virginia. The motion to transfer has been fully briefed,
bringing the case to its present posture.
Jurisdiction
As this matter arises under the FLSA, the court has federal question
jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C . § 1331 ("The district courts shall have original
jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution , laws, or treaties of
the United States. "). The court has supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's
state law minimum wage claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
2
Legal standard
Defendants bring this motion to change venue under 28 U.S.C . § 1404(a).
Section 1404(a) provides, "[f]or 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[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The
purpose of section 1404(a) is to "prevent the waste of time, energy and money
and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary
inconvenience and expense[.]" Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 , 616 (1964)
(internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
Section 1404(a) vests broad discretion with the district courts "to determine,
on an individualized, case-by-case basis, whether convenience and fairness
considerations weigh in favor of transfer." Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d
873, 883 (3d Cir. 1995) (citing Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp. , 487 U.S. 22, 3031 (1988)). "In ruling on§ 1404(a) motions, courts have not limited their
consideration to the three enumerated factors in§ 1404(a) (convenience of
parties, convenience of witnesses, or interests of justice)[.]" llt at 879. Rather,
other private and public interest factors are identified for courts to consider, as
further discussed below. llt
Discussion
3
The analysis of a section 1404(a) motion to transfer begins with the
threshold issue of whether the case could have been brought in the proposed
transferee district. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). If it could have been , then the court
proceeds to an evaluation of certain private and public interests. A weighing of
these interests determines whether the motion should be granted or denied.
Jumara, 55 F.3d at 883. Beginning with the threshold issue, the court will
address each step of the analysis in turn, bearing in mind that when considering
motions to transfer venue under Section 1404(a), the burden of persuasion
remains with the moving party, here the defendants. See In re McGraw-Hill Glob.
Educ. Holdings LLC, 909 F.3d 48, 57 (3d Cir. 2018) (citing Jumara, 55 F.3d at
879).
1. Whether Venue Is Proper in the Eastern District of Virginia 1
Section 1404(a) provides that a case may be transferred "to any other
district or division where it might have been brought[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Thus, "[p]rior to ordering a transfer the district court must make a determination
that the suit could have been rightly started in the transferee district. " Shutte v.
Armco Steel Corp., 431 F .2d 22, 24 (3d Cir. 1970). In other words, if the case
1
We provide a short analysis for th is section as it appears that the plaintiff does not dispute
whether the case could have been brought in the Eastern District of Virginia.
4
could not have originally been brought in the proposed transferee district, then it
cannot be transferred there.
Defendants argue that the case could have been brought in the Eastern
District of Virginia. The court agrees.
The law provides that federal civil actions may be brought in a judicial
district "in which a substantial part of the events or admissions giving rise to the
claim occurred" or in a district "in which any defendant is subject to the court's
personal jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b)(2)-(3).
In the context of a FLSA case, suit may be brought where the "alleged
FLSA violation - the failure to pay overtime wages - occurred . . .where Plaintiffs
worked [and] where Defendant is headquartered and would have established
policies giving rise to the FLSA violation." Stewart v. First Student, Inc., 639 F.
Supp. 3d 492, 499 (E.D. Pa. 2022).
Here, it is uncontested that plaintiff performed his work in York,
Pennsylvania, within the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Defendant Gannett, on
the other hand, is headquartered in Tyson, Fairfax County, Virginia and USA
Today is headquartered in McLean, Fairfax County, Virginia. (Doc. 8-2, Nate
Scott Deel.
,m 6-7).
Fairfax County is located in the Eastern District of Virginia .
28 U.S.C. § 127(a). Accordingly, plaintiff could have brought suit there, and the
5
case can potentially be transferred there if the balance of private and public
interests weighs in favor of such transfer.
The court, therefore, moves on to the next step of the analysis, that is the
balancing of the factors to determine if transfer is appropriate. A motion to
transfer under Section 1404(a) "calls on the district court to weigh in the balance
a number of case-specific factors." Stewart Org., Inc., 487 U.S. at 29. These
factors include both private interest factors and public interest factors. The court
will address both beginning with the private interest factors.
2. Private Interest Factors
The court next considers the parties' arguments relative to the private
interest factors. These factors relate to "the convenience of the parties and
witnesses" as enumerated in Section 1404(a). In re: Howmedica Osteonics
Corp., 867 F.3d 390, 402 (3d Cir. 2017). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has
listed the following as relevant private interest factors:
(a) plaintiff's forum preference as manifested in the original choice;
(b) defendant's preferred forum;
(c) whether the claim arose elsewhere;
(d) the convenience of the parties as indicated by their relative physical and
financial condition;
6
(e) the convenience of the witnesses-but only to the extent that the
witnesses may actually be unavailable for trial in one of the fora; and
(f) the location of the books and records (similarly limited to the extent that
files could not be produced in the alternative forum).
See Jumara, 55 F. 3d at 879.
The court addresses each in turn.
(a) Plaintiff's forum choice
"It is black letter law that a plaintiff's choice of a proper forum is a
paramount consideration in any determination of a transfer request[.]" Shutte,
431 F.2d at 25 (citation omitted). Moreover, in ruling on a motion to transfer
venue, plaintiff's choice of venue "should not be lightly disturbed." Jumara, 55
F.3d at 879.
Nevertheless, a plaintiff's choice of forum is not dispositive nor is it the only
factor to be considered in a section 1404(a) analysis. See Ricoh Co. Ltd. v.
Honeywell, Inc., 817 F. Supp. 473, 480 (D .N.J. Mar. 16, 1993). Although
plaintiff's forum choice will always weigh against transfer under Section 1404(a),
it is a case-specific question as to how much weight this factor should be given
overall. See Labrot v. John Elway Chrysler Jeep on Broadway, 436 F. Supp. 2d
729, 731 (E.D. Pa. 2006) (citing Cameli v. WNEP-16 The News Station, 134 F.
Supp. 2d 403, 405 (E.D . Pa. 2001 )).
7
For example, plaintiff's preferred forum in this matter may be given less
weight when the operative facts occurred as much in this district as in another
forum. See. e.g., Cameli, 134 F. Supp. 2d at 406 (finding plaintiff's choice of
forum to be "a factor worthy of consideration, but not a paramount one" where
the operative facts occurred in another district).
Here, it appears the operative facts which occurred in Pennsylvania are
that plaintiff performed work in York, Pennsylvania. All other operative facts,
such as decisions regarding the policies of payment of overtime wages in
violation of the FLSA occurred elsewhere, presumably where defendants are
headquartered in the Eastern District of Virginia. See Stewart v. First Student,
Inc. , 639 F. Supp. 3d 492, 499 (E.D. Pa. 2022) ("the failure to pay overtime
wages ... occurred .. . where Plaintiffs worked [and] where Defendant is
headquartered and would have established policies giving rise to the FLSA
violation. ").
Additionally, in this case, plaintiff has filed his complaint on behalf of more
than eighty (80) Site Editors located in more than thirty (30) states across the
country. (Doc. 1, Campi.
,m 6-8; Doc. 8-2, Scott Deel. ,m 10-11 ).
"An individual
plaintiff's forum preference .. . is entitled to little weight in a . .. class action. "
Osborne v. Emp. Bene. Admin . Bd. of Kraft Heinz, No. 2:19cv307, 2020 WL
1808270, at *6 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 9, 2020). Moreover, "where there are hundreds of
8
potential plaintiffs . .. the claim of any one plaintiff that a forum is appropriate
merely because it is his home forum is considerably weakened ." Koster v. (Am .)
Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U.S. 518, 524 (1947). Here, instead of
hundreds of others, plaintiff's complaint seeks to protect the rights of
approximately eighty (80) others, but this statement of the law remains
persuasive. While the potential plaintiffs are located all over the country, the
business is headquartered in only one spot, Virginia . As the potential plaintiffs
are not all located in one spot, it makes sense to center the case where the
defendants have their headquarters. Accordingly, although plaintiffs choice of
forum counts against transfer, here this factor will be provided little weight.
(b) & (c) Defendant's Preferred Forum and Whether the Action
Arose Elsewhere
The next two factors, defendant's preferred forum and whether the action
arose elsewhere, will be considered together. Here, the defendants' preferred
forum is Eastern District of Virginia where the headquarters of both defendants
are located. (Doc. 8). As noted above, a claim under the FLSA arises where the
plaintiff performed the work and also where the policies giving rise to the FLSA
claim were established. Stewart, 639 F. Supp. 3d at 499. As noted in the
previous section, it appears that the relevant policies were established in Virginia.
Moreover, the approximately eighty (80) plaintiffs are scattered across the
9
country, whereas the defendants have their headquarters in one state, Virginia.
Accordingly, these factors support transfer to the Eastern District of Virginia.
(d) the convenience of the parties/ (e) convenience of the
witnesses/(f) location of books and records
Plaintiff argues that the location of the parties, documents and witnesses
do not support venue in one district over the other. Defendant points out,
however, that its current and former employees who are familiar with the relevant
policies, contracts, payments and practices raised in plaintiff's complaint, are
located throughout the United States. Within forty (40) miles from the proposed
transferee district are three (3) large international airports. (Doc. 8-5, Def. Exh.
4). The closest large international airport to Scranton , Pennsylvania , where the
case is now assigned, is over 100 miles away, Newark Liberty International
Airport. (Doc. 8-6, Def. Exh. 5).2 The proximity of these airports would make
travel to the Eastern District of Virginia for parties and witnesses much more
convenient than travel to the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
And lastly, although, in light of modern technology, the location of
documents is of less significance than it once was, it still retains some relevance
with regard to a transfer of venue motion. In re Global Cash Access, No.
2
The Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport is located in the Scranton area. (Doc. 8-6).
It is, however, not a large airport and would provide much fewer flight options for parties and
witnesses.
10
08cv3516, 2008 WL 4344531, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2008). The bulk of the
documents at issue here presumably would be located at the defendants'
headquarters.
Based on the above analysis, the private interest factors weigh in favor of
transferring the case to the Eastern District of Virginia.
B. Public Interest Factors
The second and final set of factors to examine are the public interest
factors. These include the enforceability of the judgment, practical
considerations that could make the trial easy, expeditious, or inexpensive, the
relative administrative difficulty in the two district courts resulting from court
congestion; the local interest in deciding local controversies at home, the public
policies of the fora and the familiarity of the trial judge with the applicable state
law in diversity cases. Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879-80.
The parties only address several of these factors as relevant, including the
familiarity of the trial judge with the applicable state law, the relative
administrative difficulty in the two district courts arising from court congestion,
and the local interest in deciding local controversies at home.
The first factor is the familiarity of the trial judge with the applicable state
law. Here, the law at issue is federal law under the FLSA. Plaintiff's complaint
also contains a state law claim under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.
11
(Doc. 1, Com pl.
,m 74-81 ).
Both the state law claim and the FLSA claim assert
that plaintiff was improperly treated as an independent contractor for his work
with the defendants. (See generally Doc. 1, Com pl.) The test for independent
contractor status under the FLSA is the same as the test applied to Pennsylvania
minimum wage and overtime law claims. Verma v. 3001 Castor, Inc., 937 F.3d
221, 229 (3d Cir. 2019). As the federal and state law are the same on these
issues, a United States District Judge sitting in Pennsylvania would have no
greater familiarity with the law than a United States District Judge sitting in
Virginia. Accordingly, neither court has an advantage here and this factor is
neutral.
The second factor is the public interest in having local controversies heard
in the home district. In a potentially complex collective action such as this a
strong public interest exists in having the lawsuit heard in the district at the
"center of gravity" of the dispute. It makes sense that the burdens of litigation fall
on prospective juries and court personnel in the district having the most direct
connection with the claims. Franklin U.S. Rising Dividends Fund v. Am . lnt'I
Grp., Inc. , No. Civ.A 2:13-05805-JL, 2014 WL 1555133, at *8 (D.N.J . Apr. 14,
2014) (explaining that the district where the "center of gravity" of the dispute is
has a "stronger local interest" in the adjudication of the suit.) The instant case
seeks recovery for people from all across the nation for backpay based on wage
12
and classification policy decisions made in Virginia. Virginia would therefore
appear to have a stronger local interest than Pennsylvania.
The next factor is court congestion. The civil caseload per judge in the
Eastern District of Virginia, 280, is significantly lower than the civil caseload per
judge in the Middle District of Pennsylvania , 371 . (Doc. 8-9, Def. Exh. 8, Judicial
Caseload Profile E.D. Va.; Doc. 8-8, Def. Exh. 7, Judicial Caseload Profile
M.D.Pa.)3. Additionally, the median time for completion of a civil case is quicker
in the Eastern District of Virginia than the Middle District of Pennsylvania. (6.6
months versus 11. 7 months). (kl) The court congestion factor thus favors
transfer to the Eastern District of Virginia .
It appears, therefore, with one public interest factor being neutral and the
other public interest factors favoring transfer, that the public interest factors
relevant to this case weigh in favor of transfer.
Conclusion
Defendants have met their burden of establishing that transfer of venue is
appropriate in the instant action. Plaintiff seeks to represent persons from all
over the country, thus his choice of forum is given little weight. The defendants
have their headquarters in Virginia, and it would be more convenient for the
These statistics are from the Federal Court Management Statistics Report, wh ich is attached
as exhibits 7 and 8 to defendants' motion. (Doc.8-1, Doc. 9-1).
3
13
parties and witnesses due to, inter alia, the proximity to major airports. See, .§.:.9.:.,
Garcia-Alvarez v. Fogo de Chao Churrascaria (Pittsburgh) LLC, No. 2:20-cv1345, 2021 WL 396741 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 4, 2020) (transferring a nationwide FLSA
case and Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act Claim to the from the Western
District of Pennsylvania to the Eastern District of Texas where the defendant's
headquarters is located). Additionally, currently, there is less congestion in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia as compared to the
Middle District of Pennsylvania. Accordingly, defendants' motion to transfer will
be granted. An appropriate order follows.
14
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?