Moten v. FMC Technologies, Inc.

Filing 18

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE(Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified.(dperez, 3)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER MOTEN,
Plaintiff,
VS.
FMC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendant.

February 09, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk

§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-315
§
§
§
§

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE
The Court has considered Defendant FMC Technologies, Inc.’s Unopposed Motion to
Transfer Venue. Dkt. 14. Having considered the motion, submissions, and applicable law, the
Court finds that the motion should be GRANTED.
Christopher Moten filed this FLSA lawsuit “‘individually and on behalf of all current and
former Installation Engineers and Well Service Engineers . . .who worked for Defendant FMC
Technologies, Inc. . . . and were paid a salary plus job bonuses/day rates but did not receive
overtime.” Moten alleged that he and other putative class members “performed technical and
routine manual labor-type job duties in the oilfield and offshore in the Gulf of Mexico,”
including within the Southern District of Texas. Defendant FMC Technologies, Inc. (“FMCTI”)
has now filed an unopposed motion to transfer venue to the Houston Division. FMCTI points out
that its headquarters and offices are on the north side of Houston, over 60 miles from the
Galveston courthouse; that much of the work at issue was performed in that office space in
Houston and supervised by FMCTI employees who are all located in Houston; all of the relevant
documents are in Houston; the likely witnesses are within the subpoena power of both the

1/2

Galveston and Houston Divisions; and this case is still in the early stages. Significantly, the
motion to transfer is unopposed by the Plaintiff and counsel for the putative class members.
Section 1404(a) allows a district court to transfer a civil action “for the convenience of
parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice ... to any other district or division where it might
have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). “The district court has broad discretion in deciding
whether to order a transfer.” Caldwell v. Palmetto State Sav. Bank of S.C., 811 F.2d 916, 919
(5th Cir. 1987). Courts must “weigh the relevant factors and decide whether, on balance, a
transfer would serve ‘the convenience of parties and witnesses' and otherwise promote ‘the
interest of justice.’” Atlantic Marine Construction Company, Inc. v. United States Dist. Court for
the Western Dist. of Texas, ___ U.S. ____, ____, 134 S. Ct. 568, 581, 187 L.Ed. 2d 487 (2013).
The Court finds that this case could have been brought within the Houston Division, and the
Court further finds that the reasons stated in the motion warrant the transfer of this case.
Accordingly, the Court orders that this case be transferred to the Houston Division of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
SIGNED at Galveston, Texas, this 9th day of February, 2017.
___________________________________
George C. Hanks Jr.
United States District Judge

2/2