Haynes et al v. Acme Energy Services, Inc.

Filing 15

ORDER GRANTING Defendant's 11 Motion to Transfer Venue and Supporting Brief. This action is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Midland-Odessa Division of the Western District of Texas. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (klw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
KERRY HAYNES, JAMES THOMPSON,
§
and ROBERT SUBIA, on behalf of themselves §
and others similarly situated,
§
§
PLAINTIFFS
§
§
§
V.
§
§
ACME ENERGY SERVICES, INC. D/B/A
§
BIG DOG DRILLING,
§
§
DEFENDANT
§

No. 1:15-CV-349-RP

ORDER
Before the Court are Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue and Supporting Brief, filed July
6, 2015 (Clerk’s Dkt. #11); Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue and
Supporting Brief, filed July 15, 2015 (Clerk’s Dkt. #13); and Defendant’s Reply in Support of its
Motion to Transfer Venue, filed July 22, 2015 (Clerk’s Dkt. #14). Having reviewed the pleadings,
the applicable case law and the entire case file, this Court issues the following Order.
Background
Plaintiffs, former employees of Defendant, filed their Original Collective Action Complaint
on April 30, 2015 alleging Defendant failed to pay its employees overtime wages for all hours
worked in excess of forty hours a week in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §
201, et seq. (the “FLSA”). Plaintiffs are seeking, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, the recovery of the overtime compensation at issue, liquidated damages and attorney’s
fees.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), Defendant moves to transfer this action to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Midland-Odessa Division.

Standard of Review
Under § 1404, a district court may “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the
interest of justice” transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been
brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). District courts have broad discretion in determining whether or not
to grant a motion to transfer under § 1404(a). In re Volkswagen AG, 545 F.3d 304, 311 (5th Cir.
2008). When considering such motion, the court looks to a variety of private and public interest
factors, none of which are dispositive. Id., at 315. The motion should be granted when “the
movant demonstrates that the transferee venue is clearly more convenient.” Id.
Discussion
Arguing this case has no connection to Austin, Defendant asserts the Midland-Odessa
Division is clearly more convenient because Defendant’s headquarters (including its human
resources and payroll departments), the majority of its drilling rigs and nearly all of the relevant
documents, potential witnesses and putative class members are located in and around the MidlandOdessa area. Defendant also asserts the alleged acts and/or omissions of which Plaintiffs
complain all occurred in and around Midland-Odessa, and that the named Plaintiffs reside either
in Midland-Odessa or closer to that area than to Austin.
Plaintiffs do not dispute Defendant’s contention that trying this action in the Midland-Odessa
Division would be more convenient. In fact, Plaintiffs expressly acknowledge Defendant “may be
correct that most of the public and private interest factors weigh in favor of transferring this case
to the Midland-Odessa Division, or at least such factors are neutral . . ..” (Pls. Response, ¶ 1). The
Plaintiffs oppose the transfer, however, “out of concern as to whether the case may be
expeditiously resolved in that division.” Id.1
The Court finds, and Plaintiffs do not dispute, that the Midland-Odessa Division is clearly

1

There is currently no full-time United States District Judge assigned to the Midland-Odessa Division.

2

more convenient for the parties and witnesses. The only argument Plaintiffs assert against such
transfer is the potential for delay. When the interest factors weigh in favor of transfer, however,
the speed with which the transferee court may resolve the action does not outweigh the other
considerations. In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1347 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
Accordingly, the Court finds Defendant’s motion should be granted and the case transferred
to the Midland-Odessa Division.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue and Supporting Brief
(Clerk’s Dkt. #11) is hereby GRANTED, and this action is hereby TRANSFERRED to the MidlandOdessa Division of the Western District of Texas.
SIGNED on July 24, 2015.

ROBERT L. PITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3