Nelson v. Tidal Basin Holding, Inc. et al, No. 5:2019cv00030 - Document 32 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 11/15/2019. (jv)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Nelson v. Tidal Basin Holding, Inc. et al Doc. 32 CLERK'S OFFICE U.S.DIST.CG JRT A-rROAXOKE,9' h FILED IN TH E UN ITED STATE S D ISTM CT CO U RT FO R TH E W E STERN D ISTRICT O F W RGIN IA H ARRISON BU R G D IW SIO N ADAM N ELSON ,on B ehalfof H im selfand on BehalfofA11Others Sim ilarly Situatedy rïtl-ft ' ï'15 zgjj JULIA C,DUDLEM LERK BK DTIPUTYc i'R' , < 5:19-cv-00030 CivilAction N o.5: 18-cv-00030 Plaintiff, T IDAL BASIN H OLD IN G ,IN C. and VAN GU ARD EM ER GEN CY M AN A GEM EN T, By: M ichaelF.U rbansld ClziefUnited StatesDistrictJudge D efendant. M E M O RAN D U M O PIN ION This m atter com es before the coutt on plaindffA dam N elson's m otion to transfer venue.ECF N o.27.The defendantsTidalBasin H oldings,Inc.and Vanguard Em ergency M anagem enthave responded in opposition,ECF N o.29,and plaintiffA dam N elson then replied.EC# N o.30.Thecout'theardargumentonNovember5,2019.ECF No.31.Forthe reasonsstated below,thecolzrtD EN IES them odon. Thiscase centerson currentand fot-m erworkersclassihed asindependentcontractors by defendants Tidal Basin H oldings, Inc. and ATanguard Enaezgency A4anagenaent rfdefendants').ECF No.1,at1.PlaindffAdnm Nelson tffNelson''lseeksto repzesentthese independent contractors in a nationwide collective acéon. J.Z Nelson contends tlnat defendantsTfknowinglyand deliberatelyfailedto compensate I himqand theClassM embersat the rate of Hm e and one half thei. t regular rate of pay for all houzs worked over 40 it' la Dockets.Justia.com workweek asrequired underthe FaitLaborStandatdsAct(TFLSA'I.''LdaNelson seeksto recover,forAim selfand fortheputadvecollectiveacdon m em bers,allunpaidwagesand other damagesowedundertheFLSA asacollecdveacdonpursuantto29U.S.C.j216@ .Ld.aat2. N elson currently livesin Cypress,Texas.The putative collecdve acéon m em bersare allcurrentqnd form et tfl-lousing lnspectors''w ho were classified asindependentcontractors during the three-yeazperiod priorto the Sling ofthisCom plaintto present.ECF N o.1,at1. DefendantTidalBasin Holdings,Inc.is a Virginia for-profit com oraéon.Ld.aVanguard Em ergency M anagem ent is a com pany with its headquarters in Vitginia,w holly owned, controlled,and operated by TidalBasin H olclings,lnc.Jdaat3.Vanguard provideshousing . inspecdon servicesforindividualswhosehotneshavebeen damagedbyanatutaldisaster.Li D efendantsatepaid by the federalgovetnm entaspartofFEM A'Sdisastetteliefpzogram and provide house inspection servicesacrossthe country,including in Cahforrlia,Texas,Florida, and Puetto Rico.1d.D efendantsem ploy housing inspectorslikeN elson and theputativeclass m em bets to do this.Id.For theitwork,housing inspectorswere paid a pze-established rate perhomeinspectedand werezeimbursed fortravel.Ld.aat4. Nelson contendsthatheand theputativeclassmembersweresubjectto defendants' control,had to follow very sttictrules and regulations,and had alltheirwork reviewed and corrected by defendants,and yetwere classiûed asindependentcontractors.ECF N o.1,at6. N elson furtherallegesthatheand the putativecollectiveacdon m em betsw orked in excessof 40 houtseach week,butreceived no overtime.Ld.aat6.Nelson now requeststhetransferof venue to theSouthern D istdctofTexas,Galveston Division. 1I. 2 Under 28 U.S.C.j 13919$(2),venueis properin <fa judicialdistrictin which a substandalpart ofthe events oz onaissions giving zise to the clnim occurted.''H owever,a disttictcourtmay,ffgfloztheconvenienceofpardesandwimesses,intheinterestofjusticel,) g...1transfetanycivilacéontoanyotherdistrictordivisionwhereitnnighthavebeenbrought ''28U.S.C.j1404(a).Cotzrtstypically considerTT(1)theweightaccorded to pl/intiff's . . . . choiceofvenue;(2)witnessconveienceand access;(3)theconvenience ofthepardes;and (4)theinterestofjustice.''Trs.ofthePltzmbers& PiefittersNat'lPensionFundv.Pltzmbin Sews.lnc.,791F.3d436,444(4thCir.2015).Thepattymovingfortransferbeatstheburden ofdem onsttating thatthe balance ofintetests weighsin favor oftransfer.See e..,Uretek. ICR M id-Atlantic, Inc. v.A dam s Robinson Enters.. Inc., N o. 3:16CV00004, 2017 W L 4171392,at*5(W.D.Va.Sept.20,2017)(citationsomitted). In ruling on m otionsto transfervenue,courtsm ustflrstdeternainethethreshold issue ofwhether the lawsuitcould haveinitially been flled in the cotutto w llich transferis sought. 28U.S.C.j 1404(a).Seealso Dickson Pro s.LLC v.W ellsFar o Bank N. A .,No.7:16-cv- 527,2017WL 3273380,at*2(W.D.Va.Aug.1,2017)rfW hethertottansfervenuetherefore tutnson two questions:(1)whethervenueisproperin the proposed ttansfereedisttict,and (2)whetherconsidetationsofjusticeand conveniencejuséfythetransfer.''(emphasisadded) (ciéngKohv.MicrotekInt'l.Inc.,250 F.Supp.2d 627,630 (E.D.Va.2003))). Courtsmustnextdeterrnineffwhethezconsiderationsofjusdceandconveniencejustify the ttansfer'' sought.D ickson Pro s.,2017 W L 3273380,at *2.fv he convenience ofthe witnesses is of considerable importance in detetm ining whether a transfer of venue is appropriate under Section 1404(a).'' Mullins v.E uifax lnfo.Selvs. LLC,No.Civ.A. 3:05CV888,2006WL 1214024,at*7(E.D.Va.Apr.28,2006).However,disttictcourtsaccord g' reaterconsidetation to the convenience ofnon-party witnesses,who,unlikepartywitnesses, are notpresum ed to bewilling to testifyirlaforpam wilich isagreatdistance from wherethey teside.J-l. L 111. N elson arguesthatvenue oughtto be transferred to the U nited StatesD isttictCourt fortheSouthern D istrictofTexas,specifically,theG alveston D ivision.N elson pointsoutthat thecasecould haveoriginally flled thisacdon there,asthisiswhereN elson residesand where he completed a substantiallm ountofthew ork underlying lzisclsim .lN elson pointsoutthat he and other putadve collecdve acdon m em bers w orked for defendants irz the Southern D isttictofTexas,and thatthe districtcotutfor the Southern D isttictofTexasm ay exercise personaljlzrisclicdon overdefendantsdue to theircontactswith Texasand theizbusiness dealingsitlTexas.See e..,G onzalez v.D & P Prof'lSetvs.,Inc.,N o.1:13cv902,2014 W L 1285895,at*2 (E.D.Va.Mar.31,2014)(in casebroughtundertheFaitLaborStandatdsAct, disttictcourtheld personaljurisdiction overadefendantcasewho employed plaintiffin the stateinwhich thedisttictcourtsat). N elson assertsthat,though the G alveston D ivision wasnotN elson'sinitialchoice of fortzm,deferencetoaniniéalchoiceisnotmandatorywhen theplaintiffdoesnotobjecttoa transfer,citing Pezldnsv.Town ofPrinceville,340 F.Supp.2d 624,628 (M .D .N .C.2004). Nelson alsoassertsthatnumerouscourtshaveexpresslyrejected areqllirementthatplnindffs 1Underj13919$(2),venueisproperirl<<ajudicialdistzictinwhichasubstantialpattoftheeventsoromissionsgiving zise to thecloim occttrred.'' 4 m ust establish a change in circum stances when they try to transfez venue from theirinitial fotn'm selecéon.SeeCentralHudson Gasand Elec.Co .v.Em resaN avieraSantaS.A.,769 F.Supp.208,209 (E.D.La.1991)(granting plainéff'sttansfermodon and nodng couttwas ffunwilling to force partiesto proceed in aforum thatisinconvenientforalland thatdoesnot bestsezvetheintezestsofjustkesimplybecausetheplainéffflledsuitin thatfozum flrst>). Finally,N elson argues that,due to the m eaningfulpresence ofwitnessesin the G alveston D ivision and because the transfer will not signihcantly inconveience the defendants, consideradonsofjuséceandconveniencejustifythettansfer.Muldplewitnesseswho saw the work perform ed by N elson and putative collecdve acdon m embets reside in the Southern D istdct.N elson residesin theSouthern DisttictofTexas,andwhiledefendantsdo not,N elson atgtzes that,aslarge com orations,they possess adequate hnancialresources to defend this acéon in any forum .Finally,N elson assertsthatthe G alveston D ivision is the ffnexus ofthe conttoversy''oftlniscase,Rocldn ham ,2011W L 5526092,at*6,because asubstandalpartof the eventsgiving rise to the clnim s occurted in the Galveston Division,inclucling the actual w ork perform ed by N elson and the class m em bers,and the G alveston Division was the hardesthitby the naturaldisasters in the Southern Distzict of Texas with wllich the class m em berswozk wasconcerned. D efendants respond thatN elson chose this fozum and has thusw aved his right to objectto it.SeeHostetlerv.Dillard,No.3:13CV351-W HB-RHW ,2013 W L 4459070,at*2 (S.D.Miss.Aug.20,2013) (ffGiven thatDefendantflled aresponsive pleacling prior to Plainéff'smodon to transfervenue and given Defendant'sobjection to attansferofvenue, theCourtfindsthatPlaintiff'srequestfora transferofvenueisnow untim ely.In the absence of controlling Fifth Circuit precedent to the contraty, the Cotut finds that pursuant to Olberdin ,Plainéffhaswaived llisrightto objecttovenue.?).Defendantsdisagreetlzatno change ofcircum stancesneed be shown for N elson to secure a transfer ofvenue and argue thatno new facts or changed circkunstancesw arranta transfer now .See e..,M oto Photo, lnc.v.K. J.BroadhurstEntemrises,Inc.,No.301CV2282-1. ,,2003WL 298799,at*3 (N.D. Tex.Feb.10,2003)rfgfjn orderto prevail,aplainéffmustshow thatcircumstanceshave changedsincethefllingofsuit'l.Defendantspointoutthattheclassihcaéon ofNelson and the putadve collecéve acdon m em bers as independent contractors is based on their ow n alleged policies,pzactices,orstandazdsthatwould have been created attheirheadquartersin W inchester,m aking W inchestezthecentezofgravity forthe acdon. Finally, defendants clnim that H atrisonburg, Virg=' 'a is on balance a fat m ore convenientfomxm .D efendants em ployed housing inspectors from alm ostevery state.They perform edtheitwork alloverthecountrp Tlnisfactm akesTexasano m oreconvenientforum for litkation than Virginia. Meanwhile, allzelevant operadonal decisions occutred at defendants'corporateheadquartersin W inchester,and thusitishighlyprobablethatthe bulk ofallrelevantdocum entsand witnesseswillbe located there.O n balance,defendants assert thatthej1404(a)factorsfavorlitigation here. IV . T he cout't sees po reason to ttansfer venue to the Southern D istdct ofT exas in tlais case.In balancing the factorsatplay to dete= inewhethera transferofvenue isappropriate underj1404(a),thecourtmustlookto theconverzienceofthewimesses,theinterestsofthe parées,andthefairadlnitnisttation ofjusdce.Pra atazsAV LLC v.Facebook Inc.,769F. Supp.2d991,994-95(. E.D.Va.Jan.27,2011).Inweigllingthesefactozs,thecourtdoesnot conclude thatthe Southezn D isttictofTexasprovidesa betterorm ore convenientfortzm to thepartiestian theW estezn DisttictofVitginia.AstheComplaintmakesclear,thesubject m attezofthiscaserelatesto fom m salloverthecountry.N elson allegesanaéonwidecollecdve acdon.H eand theputativecollectiveaction m em betspetfozm ed servicesallovezthecountry, asdefendantsprovide servicesacrossthe countrp ECF N o.1,at3.Given thatm em betsof thisacdon and witnessesto them em bers'w ozk willcom e from alloverthecountry,N elson's desited forum in the Southern D istdctofTexasprovidesa no m ore convenientforum than any othetin the naéon.SeeD ean FoodsCo.v.Eastm an ChemicalCo.,N o.00 C 3675,2000 WL 1557915,at*4(N.D.111.Oct.19,2000)(concludingthat,whenwitnesseswouldbecalled fzom m any different states, convenience of the witnesses neither favored nor disfavored transfer). Furtherm ore,defendantsare located heze and areathom e here.A sdefendantsassett, m any witnesseswho willtestify as to the classificadon ofN elson and the putative collective action m em bersasindependentconttactors,likethedefendahts'em ployees,liveand work in and aroundWinchester,Virginia.SeeMlpmarziv.Bustamante,547F.Supp.2d465,473 (D. Md.April 15,2008) (convenience of the witnesses is the mostimportant factor in the determination ofwhetherto ttansfervenue).Documentsin the controlofdefendantsthat m ay be offered into evidence ate keptin W inchestet,Vitginia.Ttansporting 130th witnesses and docum entsto Texaswould im pose signiik antinconvenienceto defendantsand witnesses. O f couzse,reqlxiting N elson to tzavelto Virginia im poses significantinconvenience upon him .ButN elson chose to fllehiscasehereoriginally,and transfersareTfnotappropriate where the only justificaéon isto shiftthebalance ofinconveniences ftom one party to another.''M oto Photo,Inc.,2003 W L 298799,at *4.W ithoutdeciding w hether a plaintiff m ustshow achangeofcizcum stancesto transfervenueafterinitially flling in a certain forlam , the cokutnotes thatthere hasbeen no such change of circum stancesin the sLx intetvening m onthsbetween the date N elson flled hissuitand the datehe flled theinstantm odon. Finally,theinterestsofjusticedo notdictatethatthecouttttansfezthisaction tothe SouthernDistdctofTexas.ffRelevantconsideradonsinevaluatingthefinterestsofjuséce'ate the pendency of a related action; the coutt's fanailiarity wit.h the applicable law ; docket condidons;accessto pzenlisesthatlnighthave to beviewed;thepossibility ofunfairtrial;the ability to ) *091otherparties;and the possibl 'lity ofharassm ent.''N aéonwide M ut.Ins.Co.v. Ovezlook,LLC,CivilNo.4:10cv00069,2010 WL 2520973,*9 (E.D.Va.June 17,2010). D uring azgum ent,counselforN elson referenced anothercase concerning sim ilarissuesthat had been ftledin theSouthezn DisttictofTexasby ahousinginspectorand forwhich aliability fincling wasissued;counselfordefendantsresponded thatthiscase dealtwith unem ploym ent benefksand islargely unrelated.CounselforN elson also argued thatthe G alveston Division hasno crim inaldocketand thusm aybe ableto addressthiscasem orequickly and effciently, butacknowledged thatthisdivision and the G alveston D ivision ffareneazly the sam ein tetm s ofefficiencp''CounselforN elson also expressesno doubtthata ttialin tllisforum posesno risk of an unfair tdal,and does not express concern tegatding hatassm ent or the couzt's fam iliaritywith applicable law. Thecotutfm dsno reason to transfervenueto theSouthern D isttictofTexas. N elson'sm odon to ttansfervenue,ECF N o.27,isD EN IED . 8 An apptopriate Orderwillbe entered. sntezed: ((vyw- w /y f+f* 4A -4 /. V'-SZV M ichaelF.U rbansld ChiefUnited StatesDistrictludge 9
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
