Haynes v. U-Haul, et al.
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
U-HAUL, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO.
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
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
(11th Cir. 1989) (per curiam).
However, a district court
(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
A court faced with a motion to transfer
consideration of convenience and fairness.”
(quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622 (1964)).
A district court judge may properly transfer a case to
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,
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
This lawsuit arises from an incident in
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.
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
Additionally, Virginia law will apply.
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.
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.
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.
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?