Haynes v. U-Haul, et al.

Filing 29

OPINION AND ORDER that it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE of the court that the 15 MOTION to Dismiss or transfer is granted to the extent that this lawsuit is transferred to the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia; directing the clerk to take appropriate steps to effect the transfer; this case is closed in this court. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 9/12/12. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

SUPRENER HAYNES,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
U-HAUL, et al.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:12cv535-MHT
(WO)

OPINION AND ORDER
This cause is before the court on a motion to dismiss
or transfer filed by defendant U-Haul Co. of Virginia.
For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted
as to transfer.
U-Haul Co. of Virginia seeks transfer pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1404.

Section 1404(a) authorizes a district

court to transfer a civil action to any other district in
which it might have been brought “for the convenience of
parties

and

witnesses,

in

the

interest

of

justice.”

Because federal courts normally accord deference to a
plaintiff’s choice of forum in a motion under § 1404, the
burden is on the movant to show the suggested forum is

In re Ricoh Corp., 870 F.2d 570, 573

more convenient.

(11th Cir. 1989) (per curiam).
has

“broad

arguments

discretion

as

Industries,

to
856

in

weighing

venue.”
F.2d

However, a district court
the

England

1518,

v.

1520

conflicting
ITT

(11th

Thompson

Cir.

1988)

(citation omitted); see also Brown v. Conn. Gen. Life
Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 1193, 1197 (11th Cir. 1991) (leaving
decision to transfer “to the sound discretion of the
trial court”).
must

engage

A court faced with a motion to transfer
in

an

“individualized,

case-by-case

consideration of convenience and fairness.”
Org.,

Inc.

v.

Ricoh

Corp.,

487

U.S.

22,

Stewart
29

(1988)

(quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622 (1964)).
A district court judge may properly transfer a case to
“the

forum

in

which

judicial

resources

could

most

efficiently be utilized and the place in which the trial
would be most ‘easy, expeditious, and inexpensive.’”
Howell v. Tanner, 650 F.2d 610, 616 (5th Cir. July 13,

2

1981)* (quoting Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501,
508 (1947)) cert. denied, 456 U.S. 918 (1982).
Although a transfer will burden plaintiff Suprener
Haynes, the court believes that, on balance, a transfer
is warranted.

This lawsuit arises from an incident in

Woodbridge, Virginia.

Haynes rented a U-Haul truck to

help her move her belongings.

She picked up the U-Haul

truck at a U-Haul rental center in Woodbridge.

She then

drove the truck to her friend’s home, also in Woodbridge.
While Haynes was in the back of the truck loading her
possessions into the truck, she sustained an injury for
which she now seeks relief from U-Haul Co. of Virginia.
In sum, the parties executed the contract in Virginia,
Haynes’s injury occurred in Virginia, and all of the UHaul

Co.

of

Virginia’s

evidence

is

Additionally, Virginia law will apply.

in

Virginia.

There is no

* In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209
(11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted
as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former
Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business
on September 30, 1981.
3

connection between this lawsuit and Alabama.

While it is

more convenient for Haynes to litigate in Alabama, where
she resides, this factor does not outweigh the fact that
all of the relevant events occurred in Virginia.
court

has

carefully

considered

all

of

the

The

relevant

factors and is convinced that U-Haul Co. of Virginia has
met its burden under § 1404.
***
Accordingly, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of
the court that the motion to dismiss or transfer, (Doc.
No. 15), filed by defendant U-Haul Co. of Virginia on
August 17, 2012, is granted to the extent that this
lawsuit is transferred to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
The

clerk

of

the

court

is

DIRECTED

to

appropriate steps to effect the transfer.
This case is closed in this court.
DONE, this the 12th day of September, 2012.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

take