Ashcraft v. Core Labs. LP

• Decision Date: 28 March 2016
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-cv-03192
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
• Parties: PHILIP E. ASHCRAFT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CORE LABORATORIES LP, et al., Defendants.

PHILIP E. ASHCRAFT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CORE LABORATORIES LP, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-cv-03192

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION

March 28, 2016

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue ("Defendants' Motion"), in which Defendants request that the Court transfer this matter to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (the "Transferee District"). (ECF No. 11.) For the reasons provided herein, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion.

I. Background

This case relates to the alleged failure of Defendants to pay overtime wages to Plaintiffs as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"). Plaintiff Ashcraft "is an individual residing in Parkersburg, Wood County, West Virginia." (ECF No. 1 ¶ 1.) Plaintiff Gandara "is an individual residing in Marietta, Washington County, Ohio." (Id. ¶ 2.)

Defendant Core Laboratories LLC ("Defendant Core LLC") "is a for-profit limited liability company organized pursuant to the laws of the State of Delaware" and its "principal place of business [is] located [in] Houston, Texas." (Id. ¶¶ 6-7.) Defendant Core LLC "is the [g]eneral [p]artner of" Defendant Core Laboratories LP ("Defendant Core LP"). (Id. ¶ 8.)

Defendant Core LP "is a for-profit limited partnership, organized pursuant to the laws of the State of Delaware," (id. ¶ 3), and its "principal place of business and main U.S. headquarters is located in Houston, Texas," (ECF No. 11, Ex. 1 ¶ 4). Defendant Core LP "maintains 70 offices and laboratories in more than 50 countries." (Id. ¶ 4.)

Defendant "ProTechnics¹ is a division of [Defendant] Core [LP]" and its "principal place of business and main U.S. headquarters is also located in Houston, Texas." (Id. ¶ 6; see also ECF No. 1 ¶ 4 (providing the allegation in the Complaint that "Defendant ProTechnics has a principal office located . . . [in] Houston, Texas").) Defendant "ProTechnics has 18 . . . sales and field locations" in the United States. (ECF No. 11, Ex. 1 ¶ 6.)

"Defendant Kalika is the District Manager for Defendant ProTechnics responsible for the business and operations of Defendant ProTechnics' Parkersburg, West Virginia offices." (ECF No. 1 ¶ 9.) Defendant Kalika "lives in Parkersburg, West Virginia." (ECF No. 11, Ex. 1 ¶ 12.)

On March 16, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint against Defendants in this Court. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs Ashcraft and Gandara were hired by "Defendants ProTechnics and Core" LP as "Field Service Representatives," (id. ¶¶ 14 & 31), under the supervision of Defendant Kalika at "Defendant ProTechnics' Parkersburg, West Virginia offices," (id. ¶ 9). The Complaint avers that Plaintiffs "did not qualify . . . for any exemption from theovertime provisions of the FLSA." (Id. ¶ 35; see also id. ¶ 20 (providing the allegation in the Complaint that Plaintiff Ashcraft was not "classif[ied] . . . as a non-exempt employee in his . . . [o]ffer [l]etter" from Defendants ProTechnics and Core LP).) The Complaint further alleges that Plaintiffs worked substantial overtime, (see, e.g., id. ¶ 22 & 37), yet were not paid "at a rate of one and one-half times Plaintiffs' . . . regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a work week," (id. ¶ 44). Finally, the Complaint avers that "Defendants failed to keep accurate records of the hours worked by Plaintiff Ashcraft, Plaintiff Gandara, and similarly situated employees." (Id. ¶ 23.)

The Complaint includes a single count, which alleges that Defendants "failed to pay [Plaintiffs] and all similarly situated employees all overtime wages due and owing to Plaintiffs and the similarly situated employees in violation of the FLSA, [29] U.S.C. § 207." (Id. ¶ 45.) The Complaint describes the "similarly situated employees" as the "approximately 24 employees" who (1) "had duties similar to the duties of Plaintiffs Ashcraft and Gandara;" (2) "have worked under similar conditions and similar work schedules as Plaintiffs Ashcraft and Gandara;" (3) "have been non-exempt employees entitled to overtime wages similar to Plaintiffs Ashcraft and Gadara [sic];" (4) "have been . . . treated by Defendants as exempt employees in a manner similar to Plaintiffs Ashcraft and Gandara;" and (5) "have been . . . denied overtime wages by Defendants in a manner similar to Plaintiffs Ashcraft and Gandara." (Id. ¶ 38-39.)

Defendants filed Defendants' Motion on April 24, 2015. (ECF No. 11.) Defendants attached the notarized affidavit of Suzanne Long as an exhibit to this motion. (See id., Ex. 1.) In this affidavit, Ms. Long states that she is employed "as a Senior Human Resources Generalist at" Defendant Core LP, (id. ¶ 1), and possesses "personal knowledge . . . regarding [Defendant]ProTechnics' employment records, personnel policies and procedures regarding compensation, classification of employees, personnel record-keeping procedures, and customary employment practices," (id. ¶ 3). Ms. Long also states that Defendant Core LP's "headquarters" is in Houston, Texas, its "business records are located in Houston," and its "executive activities are primarily conducted in Houston." (Id. ¶ 5.) Ms. Long states that Defendant Core LP's "Human Resources Department . . . in Houston is exclusively responsible" for (1) "formulating and overseeing ProTechnics' personnel policies and procedures, including the classification of ProTechnics employees and Protechnics employees' wages, hours, and overtime;" (2) "maintaining all original employment and payroll records for ProTechnics employees, including time, attendance, and expense reports;" and (3) "processing and administering payroll for ProTechnics employees." (Id. ¶ 7.) Ms. Long then states that "[e]mployee pay is processed, prepared, and distributed form the headquarters in Houston, and all paycheck stubs and W-2 Earnings Summaries for ProTechnics employees bear [Defendant Core LP's] Houston address." (Id. ¶ 8.) Ms. Long further states that Defendant Core LP's "Houston headquarters is the repository for the original employment and payroll records relevant to the claims of Plaintiffs . . . Ashcraft and . . . Gandara, as well as the other putative collective action members." (Id. ¶ 10.)

As to Defendants' pertinent policies, Ms. Long states in her affidavit that "[t]he policies and practices related to human resources, compensation, and classification of the Field Service Representative position(s) were generated (and are maintained) at [Defendant Core LP's] principal headquarters in Houston." (Id. ¶ 11; see also id. ¶ 10 (providing Ms. Long's statement that Defendant "ProTechnics' business records, including time, attendance, and expense reports and policies and practices related to human resources and compensation . . . are maintained inHouston").) Ms. Long also states that "[n]o company policies pertaining to wages, hours, and overtime pay were ever devised in West Virginia." (Id. ¶ 9.)

Plaintiffs filed their opposition briefing to Defendants' Motion on May 11, 2015. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiffs do not contest any of these statements in Ms. Long's affidavit in Plaintiffs' opposition briefing. (See id.) Defendants then filed their reply briefing in support of Defendants' Motion on May 18, 2015. (ECF No. 16.) As such, Defendants' Motion is fully briefed and ready for disposition.

II. Legal Standard

Defendants request transfer of this case "pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) on the ground of forum non conveniens." (ECF No. 12 at 1.) Section 1404(a) "provides a mechanism for transfer between district courts in which venue is proper." Ferro Prods. Corp. v. Cattrell Cos., Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-30752, 2015 WL 5721605, at *5 (S.D. W. Va. Sept. 29, 2015). 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) states the following, in relevant part: "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 . . . ." "[T]he 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) (citation omitted). As such, "Section 1404(a) is generally reserved for cases that are filed in the proper district, but in which convenience dictates transfer to another district." Leonard v. Mylan, Inc., 718 F. Supp. 2d 741, 743 (S.D. W. Va. 2010); see also Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Tex., 134 S. Ct. 568, 580 (2013) ("Section 1404(a) is merely a codification of the doctrine of forum non conveniens for the subset of cases in which the transferee forum is within the federal courtsystem; in such cases, Congress has replaced the traditional remedy of outright dismissal with transfer." (citation omitted)).

"Section 1404(a) is intended to place discretion in the district court to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an 'individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.'" Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (quoting Van Dusen, 376 U.S. at 622). "In deciding whether to transfer a case under § 1404(a), a court must first determine whether the action 'might have been brought' in the transferee district." Leonard, 718 F. Supp. 2d at 745 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)). If so, the district court must "weigh in the balance a number of case-specific factors." Stewart Org., 487 U.S. at 29. These "private- and public-interest factors" include the following: (1) "ease of access to evidence;" (2) "the convenience of the parties and witnesses;" (3) "the cost of obtaining the attendance of witnesses;" (4) "the availability of compulsory process;" (5) "the possibility of a view;" (6) "the interest in having local controversies decided at home;" and (7) "the overriding interests of justice." Leonard, 718 F. Supp. 2d at 745 (citing Vass...