Coffin v. Magellan HRSC, Inc.
| Decision Date | 24 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV 20-0144 JB/GJF,CIV 20-0144 JB/GJF |
| Parties | CHRISTIE COFFIN; KIMBERLY WILLMOTT and BRENDA KASATY Plaintiffs, v. MAGELLAN HRSC, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion to Transfer Venue, filed July 8, 2020 (Doc. 48). The Court held a hearing on August 7, 2020. See Clerk's Minutes at 1, filed August 7, 2020 (Doc. 60). The primary issues are: (i) whether the Court should depart from the law of the case and retransfer the action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California; (ii) whether unanticipated post-transfer change in circumstances exist in this case and if the Court should consider them to warrant departure from the law of the case regarding transfer; and (iii) whether the Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over the class-action Plaintiffs' claims after Christie Coffin, Kimberly Willmott, and Brenda Kasaty (the "Class Representatives") withdrew from a similar class-action case currently pending in the United Stated District Court for the District of New Mexico. The Court concludes that the case should not be retransferred to the Southern District of California because: (i) there are no factors that warrant thereconsideration of the original transfer order and thus departure from the law of the case; (ii) the Court should not consider unanticipated post-transfer changes in circumstance in considering a motion to retransfer, and, even if it does, such changes have not occurred in this case; and (iii) the Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' claims because the Class Representatives' withdrawal from an ongoing case in the District of New Mexico, Deakin v. Magellan Health, Inc. et al., No. 17-cv-773 KWR/KK, does not revoke their consent to the District of New Mexico's jurisdiction. The Court, therefore, will deny the request to retransfer venue to the Southern District of California.
The Court takes its facts from the Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint. See Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint for Violations of California Labor Law Statutes and Unfair Business Practices, filed June 14, 2019 (Doc. 1-3)("Complaint"). The Court accepts the factual allegations as true for the purposes of the Motion. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Sanders v. Mountain Am. Fed. Credit Union, 689 F.3d 1138, 1141 (10th Cir. 2012)(concluding that a court accepts "all facts pleaded by the non-moving party as true and grants all reasonable inferences from the pleadings in that party's favor"). The Court does not, however, accept as true the legal conclusions within the Complaint. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 ().
Christie Coffin, Kimberly Willmott, and Brenda Kasaty, all worked at various points in time from 2014 through the present as Care Managers and Senior Care Managers for the Defendant, Magellan HRSC, Inc. ("Magellan HRSC"). See Complaint ¶¶ 20, 26, 32, at 8-10. Of the Class Representatives, only one resides currently in California. See Declaration of Abbey M. Jahnke inSupport of Plaintiffs' Motion to Transfer Venue, filed July 8, 2020, 3 (Doc. 50)("Jahnke Decl."). The Plaintiffs proposed a class that includes the Class Representatives and "all similarly situated former and current employees of Magellan HRSC who, at any time during the four year period preceding the filing of this complaint, were employed in California in the capacity of a 'care manager' or 'senior care manager' and classified as an exempt employee." Complaint ¶ 37, at 10.
Magellan HRSC classified the Plaintiffs as employees exempt from overtime pay, leading the Class Representatives to file causes of action, including: (i) failure to pay wages under Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201, 202, 204; (ii) failure to pay overtime compensation under Cal. Indus. Welfare Comm'n, Order No. 4-2001; (iii) failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements under Cal. Lab. Code § 226(a); and (iv) unlawful business practices under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. See Complaint ¶¶ 47-86, at 12-19. Magellan HRSC classified employees working in the roles of "Care Manager" and "Senior Care Manager" as exempt from the requirement to be paid overtime wages, because:
[S]uch employees' duties and responsibilities: (1) did not involve the management of Magellan's business and/or the on-site location at which they were employed; (2) did not customarily and regularly involve directing the work of two or more employees; (3) did not include the authority to hire or fire other employees; (4) did not include the authority to customarily and regularly exercise discretion and independent judgment; (5) such employees were not engaged in work that was primarily intellectual, managerial or creative; and (6) such employees were not primarily engaged in the duties which are required in order to qualify as an exempt employee under California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 4-2001, or any other California Industrial Commission Wage Order.2
During their employment with Magellan HRSC, the Plaintiffs were expected to, and did consistently, "work in excess of 8 hours in a day and/or 40 hours in a work week without being paid overtime compensation." Complaint ¶ 44, at 11. During their employment, the Plaintiffs were not paid for the full amount of time worked, compensated for overtime worked, nor provided itemized wage statements. See Complaint ¶¶ 21, 27, 33, 39, at 8-10.
In June, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a class action in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego against Magellan HRSC. See Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue, filed February 19, 2020 (Doc. 23-1)(Bashant, J.)("SDC Order"). The Plaintiffs allege that Magellan HRSC misclassified certain employees as exempt from overtime pay and raises claims for: (i) failure to pay wages; (ii) failure to pay overtime compensation; (iii) failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; and (iv) unlawful business practices. See SDC Order at 2, 7. Magellan HRSC removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and then sought to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. See SDC Order at 2, 3.
On February 19, 2020, the Honorable Cynthia Bashant, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, transferred this action to the District of New Mexico. See SDC Order at 1. The SDC Order states that the first-to-file rule applies to this action regarding an ongoing case in the District of New Mexico, Deakin v. Magellan Health, Inc. et al., No. 17-cv-773 KWR/KK ("Deakin"), pending before the Honorable Kea W. Riggs, United States District Judge for the District of New Mexico. See SDC Order at 8-9; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Transfer Venue, filed July 8, 2020, 3 (Doc. 49)("TransferMemo"). Judge Bashant notes that Deakin was filed before this action. See SDC Order at 3. Judge Bashant also concludes that both actions contain substantially similar parties, including the same Defendant and two classes that "will encompass at least some of the same individuals." SDC Order at 5. Judge Bashant explains that the underlying allegations of the two actions are the same: that Magellan HRSC misclassifies certain employees as exempt from overtime pay and underpays employees because of this misclassification. See SDC Order at 8. Judge Bashant concludes that: (i) the Plaintiffs did not show that they will suffer prejudice because of a transfer of venue; (ii) that dismissal is inappropriate because this action includes claims founded on the California Labor Code, rather than just the FLSA and New Mexico law in Deakin; and (iii) that transfer to the District Court of New Mexico is most appropriate. See SDC Order at 9-10.
On July 8, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. See Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion to Transfer Venue at 1, filed July 8, 2020 (Doc. 48)("Motion"). The Plaintiffs argue that transfer is proper, because this action: (i) was filed originally in California and may be heard in the Southern District of California; (ii) alleges violations of substantive California law; and (iii) arises out of events and transactions taking place exclusively in California. See Motion at 2. The Plaintiffs argue that these considerations, along with discretionary factors and the interests of an efficient judiciary, make the Southern District of California proper venue for this action. See Motion at 2.
The Plaintiffs note that this action was previously pending, with no jurisdictional or venuedefect, in the Southern District of California and thus "might have been brought" in the Southern District of California, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1404. See Transfer Memo at 4. The Plaintiffs then contend that the discretionary factors a court may consider in making a transfer decision weigh in favor of transferring the action, including: (i) the Southern District of California is the Plaintiffs' original choice of forum; (ii) a significant number of witnesses and sources of proof for the Plaintiffs' action are located in California and Magellan HRSC has no ties to New Mexico regarding these claims; (iii) the cost of making the necessary proof will be less in California given that a majority of witnesses reside there; (iv) that California law governs the Plaintiffs' claims and thus that there is a possibility of existence of questions arising in the area of conflict of laws; and (v) that having a local California court decide...
To continue reading
Request your trial