Hagans v. INTEGRATED PRODUCTION SERVICES, INC. et al

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 14 MOTION to Transfer Case to United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. This action is transferred to the Western District of Pennsylvania. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (cfelchak, 4)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

JACK HAGANS,

§
§

Plaintiff,

§
§

v.

§
§

INTEGRATED PRODUCTION SERVICES,
INC., and WARRIOR ENERGY
SERVICES, CORP.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-14-2965

§
§
§
§
§
§

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the court is Defendants·

Motion to Transfer

Venue (Docket Entry No. 14), seeking transfer of this case to the
United

States

District

Court

for

the

Western

District

Pennsylvania under the Fifth Circuit·s first-to-file rule.

of

After

carefully considering the parties' arguments, the records on file,
and the applicable law,

the court is persuaded that Defendants'

motion should be granted.
"Under the first-to-file rule, when related cases are pending
before two federal courts,

the court in which the case was last

filed may refuse to hear it if the issues raised by the cases
substantially overlap."
174

F.3d

identical,

599,

603

(5th

Cadle Co. v. Whataburger of Alice, Inc.,
Cir.

1999).

as long as the court finds a

issues and parties.

The

cases

need

not

be

substantial overlap in

Save Power Ltd. v. Syntek Fin. Corp., 121 F.3d

947,

950

(5th Cir.

To avoid the first-to-file

1997).

rule,

a

plaintiff must demonstrate compelling circumstances that caution
against transfer.
342

White v. Peco Foods, Inc., 546 F. Supp. 2d 339,

(S.D. Miss. 2008); see

Mann Mfg.,

Inc. v. Hortex,

Inc., 439

F.2d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 1971).
Plaintiff, Jack Hagans, filed this action on October 17, 2014,
alleging that Defendants, Integrated Production Services, Inc., and
Warrior Energy Services, Corp., violated the FLSA by misclassifying
Hagans as exempt from overtime requirements when Hagans worked as
a coil tubing operator in Pennsylvania. 1

Fifteen months earlier,

on May 17, 2013, other former employees of Defendants,
coil

operators,

brought

a

collective/class

including

action

against

Defendants in the Western District of Pennsylvania, alleging that
Defendants violated the FLSA by, among other things, misclassifying
them as

exempt

from overtime

requirements. 2

Dunkel

et

al.

v.

Superior Energy Services, Inc. et al., No. 2:13-695-MRH (W.D. Pa.
filed May 17, 2013).
Mark R. Hornak,

That case is currently pending before Judge

who conditionally certified a class of employees

on December 23, 2014. 3

lOriginal Complaint, Docket Entry No.1.
2Second Amended
Individual
and Collective/Class Action
Complaint, Exhibit B to Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue,
Docket Entry No. 14-2.
30 r der, Exhibit 1 to Defendants' Supplement to their Motion to
Transfer Venue, Docket Entry No. 15-1.

-2 -

The court has compared the complaints in the two cases, and
it is satisfied that there is a substantial overlap in issues and
Therefore,

parties.

under

the

first-to-file

rule,

the proper

course of action is to transfer this case to the Western District
of Pennsylvania.
The

court

has

considered

Plaintiff's

arguments

against

transfer and concludes that Plaintiff has not demonstrated any
compelling circumstances.

The issue of consolidation is not before

this court, and by transferring Plaintiff's case the court is not
forcing

Plaintiff

Pennsylvania.

to

join

Transfer

the

collective

action

will,

however,

better

pending

in

facilitate

coordination among the parties and will place the dispute before a
court familiar with the central issues in the case.
Furthermore,

transfer will serve the underlying purposes of

the first-to-file rule:

"[T]o avoid the waste of duplication, to

avoid rulings which may trench upon the authority of sister courts,
and to avoid piecemeal resolution of issues that call for a uniform
result."

W. Gulf Mar. Ass'n v.

721,

(5th Cir.

729

1985).

ILA Deep Sea Local 24,

751 F.2d

"It would constitute an unnecessary

interference by this court into a sister court's affairs, as well
as an unwise use of judicial resources,
court

in

the

[Western

District

of

for this court and the
Pennsylvania]

to

issue

potentially inconsistent rulings concerning the same conduct by the

-3-

same Defendants."

See Young v.

Lefleur Transp.

402CV199DA, 2002 WL 31992189, at *2
The

court

having

determined

of Tupelo,

No.

(N.D. Miss. Nov. 18, 2002).
that

this

case

substantially

overlaps with a case previously filed in the Western District of
Pennsylvania, and finding no compelling circumstances that would
bar transfer, Defendants Motion to Transfer Venue (Docket Entry No.
14) is GRANTED, and the action is TRANSFERRED to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 16th day

0

2015.

SIM LAKE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-