Ford v. WSP USA, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:19-cv-11705
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ford v. WSP USA, Inc., Judge Schofield postponed a conference and requested more letters before deciding WSP USA’s anticipated transfer motion.
Harold Ford and WSP USA, Inc.; the order also concerns proposed collective-action members who reside or worked outside Texas.
What happened
In Ford v. WSP USA, Inc., WSP USA told the court it expected to seek transfer of the case to the Eastern District of Texas, arguing that the relevant events and evidence were there. The court was likely to decide the issue based on the parties’ letters.
Ford opposed considering transfer at that stage. He argued that his proposed nationwide collective action and the court’s jurisdiction over WSP USA made transfer inappropriate, and that the relevant factors did not support moving the case.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield postponed the initial pretrial conference from May 14 to May 21, 2020. She ordered both sides to file supplemental letters of no more than three pages by May 18; WSP USA also had to say whether it would agree not to challenge personal jurisdiction over itself or over proposed class members who lived or worked outside Texas if the transfer motion were granted.
The detailed version
- Ford v. WSP USA, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-11705
- Lorna Schofield
- May 12, 2020
Background
WSP USA filed a letter anticipating a motion to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. WSP USA argued that transfer was appropriate under the factors used to evaluate convenience because the events underlying Ford’s claim occurred in Texas and the Eastern District of Texas would be more convenient for likely witnesses, documents, and other evidence.
Ford opposed the anticipated transfer motion. He argued that considering transfer was premature because his collective action sought to represent a nationwide group. He also argued that the proposed transfer was intended to restrict the proposed class, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County. Ford further argued that WSP USA was subject to general jurisdiction in New York rather than Texas and that the relevant transfer factors did not favor moving the case.
Order
The court stated that it was likely to rule on the anticipated transfer motion based on the parties’ letters. Judge Lorna G. Schofield adjourned the initial pretrial conference from May 14, 2020, to May 21, 2020, at 10:40 a.m.
The court ordered the parties to file supplemental letters, each no longer than three pages, by May 18, 2020. The court specifically ordered WSP USA to state whether, if its transfer motion were granted, it would stipulate that it would not challenge personal jurisdiction over itself or over the claims of proposed class members who lived or worked outside Texas.
This order did not grant or deny the anticipated transfer motion. It addressed the schedule and requested additional information before the court ruled.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.