Jim v. CoreCivic of Tenn., LLC

• Decision Date: 27 October 2021
• Docket Number: CIV 20-0618 JB/JFR
• Parties: ADRIAN JIM, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE, LLC, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico

ADRIAN JIM, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE, LLC, Defendant.

No. CIV 20-0618 JB/JFR

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

October 27, 2021

Anthony J. Lazzaro Chastity Christy Lori Griffin The Lazzaro Law Firm, L.L.C. Moreland Hills, Ohio Hans Nilges Nilges Draher, L.L.C. Massillon, Ohio Don Foty Hodges & Foty, LLP. Houston, Texas Attorneys for the Plaintiffs

Christian Angotti Robert W. Pritchard Littler Mendelson, P.C. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Robert Shawn Oller Littler Mendelson, P.C. Phoenix, Arizona Attorneys for the Defendant

MEMORANDUM OPINION ^[1]

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendant's Motion to Transfer, filed November 16, 2020 (Doc. 26)(“Motion”). The Court held a hearing on December 22, 2020. See Clerk's Minutes, filed December 22, 2020 (Doc. 38). The primary issue is whether the Court should transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, because the Plaintiff's counsel filed an action making similar allegations against the same Defendant in the Middle District of Tennessee. The Court concludes that it should not transfer this case, because: (i) the first-to-file rule does not govern this case, because the case presents a different controversy with different parties than the case in the Middle District of Tennessee; and (ii) the discretionary factors governing change of venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 do not weigh in favor of transferring, because Jim filed this case in the United States District Court for the District

1

of New Mexico, and Defendant CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC, does business in New Mexico. The Court, therefore, denies the Motion.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Court takes its facts from the Plaintiff's Original Class Action Complaint, filed June 25, 2020 (Doc. 1)(“Complaint”), the Motion, the Defendant's Brief in Support of its Motion to Transfer, filed November 16, 2020 (Doc. 27)(“Supporting Brief”), and the Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue, filed December 8, 2020 (Doc. 31)(“Response”). The Court supplies a factual background to assist the parties in knowing what facts the Court uses for this Memorandum Opinion, not to state these facts for their truth. These facts do not bind the parties or the Court at trial. The Court recognizes that the factual background largely reflects Jim's version of events.

Until 2019, Jim worked in New Mexico as a correctional officer for CoreCivic Tennessee, a company that operates private prison services nationwide. See Complaint ¶¶ 11-12, at 3. As a correctional officer, Jim was tasked with helping to manage and oversee the inmate population at CoreCivic Tennessee facilities. See Complaint ¶ 13, at 3. Correctional and detention officers, like Jim, are “responsible for the custody and discipline of inmates and detainees held at correctional and detention centers operated by” CoreCivic Tennessee. Complaint ¶ 13, at 3. Correctional and detention officers also are tasked with searching for contraband, providing security, and counting, feeding, and supervising detainees and inmates. See Complaint ¶ 13, at 3.

Every time Jim and other corrections officers arrive at work, they undergo a thorough screening to ensure they are not bringing prohibited items into the facilities. See Complaint ¶¶ 15-20, at 3-4. Correctional officers have to empty their bags and pockets, remove their shoes, belts, and jackets, take off all metal objects, and hand over their personal items for inspection. See

2

Complaint ¶ 16, at 3-4. After shedding items for search, correctional officers walk through a metal detector and undergo “a further search if any metal objects were detected.” Complaint ¶ 17, at 4. Once cleared, correctional officers then must put back on their shoes, belts, and jackets, and replace all personal items. See Complaint ¶ 18, at 4. Last, before correctional officers can clock in to work, they must pass through several security doors. See Complaint ¶ 19, at 4. The entire security screening process lasts between ten and twenty minutes. See Complaint ¶ 20, at 4. Although CoreCivic Tennessee requires these security screenings, tells correctional officers -- including Jim -- when to arrive at the prison centers, and although these security screenings are necessary for the prisons' safety and security, as well as the safety and security of the correctional officers and their work, CoreCivic Tennessee does not compensate Jim or other correctional officers for this time. See Complaint ¶¶ 20-26, at 4-5.

On February 25, 2020, Jim's counsel, on behalf of other CoreCivic Tennessee employees, sued CoreCivic Tennessee in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 203 (“FLSA”), and Ohio's minimum wage laws. Supporting Brief at 2. Several weeks later, on March 12, 2020, again on CoreCivic Tennessee employees' behalf, Jim's counsel sued CoreCivic Tennessee in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, also alleging FLSA violations. See Supporting Brief at 2.

CoreCivic Tennessee moved to transfer the Northern District of Ohio case to the Middle District of Tennessee, where CoreCivic Tennessee is headquartered. See Supporting Brief at 2-3. CoreCivic Tennessee intended to file similar motions to transfer the Western District of Oklahoma and District of Colorado cases to the Middle District of Tennessee. See Supporting Brief at 3. Rather than oppose CoreCivic Tennessee's motions to transfer, however, Jim's counsel “stipulated

3

to the dismissal [of] each of these cases without prejudice, in order to consolidate the plaintiffs and their claims into a single lawsuit in the Middle District of Tennessee.” Supporting Brief at 3. On May 15, 2020, all the claims that were alleged in the Northern District of Ohio, Western District of Oklahoma, and District of Colorado cases were consolidated, and pleaded as a single action against CoreCivic Tennessee in the Middle District of Tennessee. See Supporting Brief at 3; Ballard, et al. v. CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC, No. 3 CIV 20-0428 (M.D. Tenn. May 15, 2020)(“Ballard”). Ballard contains two causes of action for unpaid overtime wages, in violation of the FLSA and Ohio's minimum wage laws. See Supporting Brief at 3. The parties stipulated to a FLSA collective action defined as:

All current and former Correctional Officers, Senior Correctional Officers, Detention Officers, and Senior Detention Officers classified as non-exempt during the two-year period before the date of mailing of the notice contemplated by this stipulation in all correctional and detention centers nationwide excluding those who worked exclusively at the Eloy Detention Center [in Arizona], Lake Erie Correctional Institution [in Ohio], the Trousdale Turner Correctional Center [in Tennessee], and any location in California

Joint Stipulation for Conditional Certification and Notice to Collective Action Members at 1, filed November 16, 2020 (Doc. 27-3). Ballard is also brought on behalf of a group of Ohio workers, defined as: “All of Defendant's current and former correctional and detention officers who worked in Ohio and worked 40 or more hours in at least one workweek at any point within two years preceding this action.” Jeanne Ballard, Marsha Caposell, Gregory Scott Glatian, and John Gandara on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC., Class and Collective Action Complaint ¶ 35, at 5, filed November 16, 2020 (Doc. 27-1)(“Ballard Complaint”).

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On June 25, 2020, Jim -- on behalf of himself and others similarly situated -- filed this suit

4

in the District of New Mexico, alleging that, by not compensating its correctional and detention officers for the time spent undergoing security screening, CoreCivic Tennessee violated the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act, N.M.S.A. § 50-4-22(D), breached its employment contracts with its employees, withheld the reasonable value of services (quantum meruit), and were unjustly enriched. See Complaint ¶¶ 35-54, at 6-8. Arguing that this case is substantially like Ballard, CoreCivic Tennessee asks the Court to transfer this case to the Middle District of Tennessee. See Motion at 1-2; Supporting Brief at 2. Jim prefers that this case stay in the District of New Mexico. See Response at 1. The Court held a hearing on December 22, 2020. See Clerk's Minutes at 1, filed December 22, 2020 (Doc. 38).

1. The Motion.

CoreCivic Tennessee asks the Court to transfer this case to the Middle District of Tennessee. See Motion at 1. In the Motion, CoreCivic Tennessee states that Jim's counsel filed Ballard in the Middle District of Tennessee on May 15, 2020, “alleging that CoreCivic Tennessee failed to compensate Correctional and Detention Officers in numerous states (including New Mexico) for time spent in security screening, ” in violation of the FLSA and Ohio's overtime compensation statute, Ohio Rev. Code. Ann. § 4111.03. Motion at 1. CoreCivic Tennessee argues that, pursuant to the “first-to-file rule of federal comity, ” the Middle District of Tennessee “assumed jurisdiction over this dispute before the District of New Mexico.” Motion at 1. According to CoreCivic Tennessee, the “chronology of the actions, the similarity of the parties, and the similarity of the issues” support transferring this case to the Middle District of Tennessee. Motion at 1-2.

2. CoreCivic Tennessee's Supporting Brief.

The Motion is short and devotes little space to explaining its position and arguments, so

5

CoreCivic Tennessee filed a Supporting Brief more fully explaining their arguments. See Supporting Brief at 1-12. In the Supporting Brief, CoreCivic Tennessee makes four arguments: (i) the first-to-file...