Foster et al v. Judicial Correction Services, Inc. et al

Filing 29

OPINION AND ORDER denying 14 MOTION to Transfer. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/14/2012. (wcl, )

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

LISA FOSTER et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
v.
JUDICIAL CORRECTION
SERVICES, INC., and
CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE
COMPANIES, INC.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:12cv724-MHT
(WO)

OPINION AND ORDER
This cause is before the court on a motion for change
of

venue

Services,

filed
Inc.

by

defendants

(“JCS”)

Companies, Inc. (“CHC”).

and

Judicial

Correction

Correctional

Healthcare

For the reasons that follow,

the motion will be denied.
In this suit, plaintiffs claim that JCS coerced them
to

pay

fines

and

fees

be

lawful

on

the

orders

basis
and

of

documents

purporting

to

conditions

of

probation.

Plaintiffs charge that JCS collected these

fines and fees in excess of its authority as a private

corporation.

According to plaintiffs, JCS held itself

out as a law enforcement agency, when it is in fact a
private company.

CHC is a successor to JCS.

JCS and CHC seek transfer of this action 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
the 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
more convenient.

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

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

“broad

arguments

as

Industries,

discretion
to
856

in

weighing

venue.”
F.2d

However, a district court
the

England

1518,

v.

1520

(11th

conflicting
ITT

Thompson

Cir.

1988)

(citation omitted); see also Brown v. Conn. Gen. Life
Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 1193, 1197 (11th Cir. 1988) (leaving
decision to transfer “to the sound discretion of the

2

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,
1981)* (quoting Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501,
508 (1947)) cert. denied, 456 U.S. 918 (1982).
JCS and CHC argue that the Northern District of
Alabama is a more convenient forum because three of the
five plaintiffs to this action reside in the Northern
District.

Furthermore, these three plaintiffs engaged

* 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
September 30, 1981.
3

with JCS and CHC through probation offices located in the
Northern District.

Thus, JCS and CHC argue that the

center of this action is the Northern District.
However, two of the five plaintiffs reside in the
Middle District of Alabama, and their disputes with JCS
and CHC occurred through probation offices in the Middle
District.

All

the

evidence

relating

to

plaintiffs is located in the Middle District.

these

two

Thus the

balance of convenience weighs only slightly towards the
Northern District.

Further undercutting JCS and CHC’s

argument is the fact that the plaintiffs who reside in
the Northern District submitted affidavits attesting that
the Middle District is actually a more convenient forum
for them.

The plaintiffs also state that an additional

plaintiff, residing in the Middle District, is expected
to join this action.

This anticipated plaintiff engaged

with JCS and CHC through probation offices in the Middle
District.

For these reasons, the court finds that JCS

4

and CHC have not shown sufficient reason to disregard the
plaintiffs’ choice of forum.
Finally, JCS and CHC seek transfer so that this case
may be consolidated with another action pending in the
Northern

District

of

Alabama,

Gina

Ray,

et

al.

v.

Judicial Correction Services, Inc., et al., No. 2:12-CV02819 (“Ray action”).

Because the Ray action was filed

seven days after the instant case, JCS and CHC must show
“compelling circumstances” warrant transfer. “In absence
of compelling circumstances, the court initially seized
of a controversy should be the one to decide the case.”
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Haydu, 675
F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 1982) (citing Mann Mfg., Inc.
v. Hortex, Inc., 439 F.2d 403 (5th Cir. 1971)).

“It

should make no difference whether the competing courts
are both federal courts or a state and federal court with
undisputed concurrent jurisdiction.”

Id.

JCS and CHC have not demonstrated that compelling
circumstances justify dispensing with the first-to-file

5

rule in this case.

JCS and CHC point out that, in

Barnett v. Alabama, 171 F. Supp. 2d, 1292 (S.D. Ala.
2001), a court in the Southern District transferred an
action to the Middle District even though the action in
the Southern District was filed first.

However, in that

case a three-judge panel had been convened first in the
Middle District, a fact the court found to favor transfer
from

the

Southern

District

for

consolidation.

Furthermore, the action centered around evidence and
witnesses located wholly in the state capital, and thus
in the Middle District.

In contrast, all the evidence

relating to two out of five (and potentially three out of
six) plaintiffs to this suit is located in the Middle
District of Alabama.

The court can find no compelling

circumstances to justify disregarding the rule that the
district wherein an action was first filed should be the
district that decides it.

6

***
Accordingly, it is the ORDER of the court that the
motion to transfer (Doc. No. 14) filed by defendants
Judicial

Correction

Services,

Inc.

and

Correctional

Healthcare Companies, Inc., is denied.
DONE, this the 14th day of November, 2012.

/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE