Bank of Brewton v. The Travelers Companies, Inc. et al
ORDER that Defendants' 2 Motion to Transfer Venue is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that this action be, and hereby is, TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Southern Division for all further proceedings. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 4/9/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist) (dmn, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
BANK OF BREWTON,
THE TRAVELERS COMPANIES, INC.,
CASE NO. 2:13-cv-151-MEF
(W.O.—Do Not Publish)
Before the Court is the Motion to Transfer (Doc. #2) filed by The Travelers
Companies, Inc. and St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company (collectively, “Defendants”) on
March 12, 2013, which moves the Court to transfer this action to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Alabama. On March 22, 2013, Plaintiff Bank of Brewton
(“Plaintiff”) filed its Response to Motion to Transfer Venue (Doc. #4), which opposes
Defendants’ motion, and on April 3, 2013, Defendants filed a reply in support of their motion
(Doc. #12). On April 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a surreply brief (Doc.
#13), which the Court granted (Doc. #14), and Plaintiff filed its surreply on April 8, 2013
(Doc. #15). This is a diversity action that Defendants properly removed to federal court on
March 11, 2013. (Doc. #1.)
Unless otherwise provided by law, 28 U.S.C. § 1391 “shall govern the venue of all
civil actions brought in district courts of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(1). Under
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), a civil action may only be brought in “(1) a judicial district where any
defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State; (2) a judicial district in which
a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial
part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) a judicial district in which
any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be
brought.” The law further provides, “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, [and]
in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district . .
. where it might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
The Court finds venue improper in the Middle District of Alabama under the three
prongs of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The first prong does not provide a basis for venue because
the defendants in this action do not reside in the same state. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). The
second prong does not provide a basis for venue either, because no substantial part of the
events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims are alleged to have occurred in this
district, and no substantial part of property involved in this litigation is situated in this. See
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Finally, the third prong provides no basis for venue because there
is another district in which this action could have been brought—the Southern District of
Alabama, where the events giving rise to this action occurred. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3).
For the reasons outlined above, the Court finds that venue is improper in the Middle
District of Alabama, and this case is due to be transferred to the Southern District of
Alabama. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue (Doc. #2) is
GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that this action be, and hereby is, TRANSFERRED to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Southern Division for
all further proceedings.
DONE this the 9 day of April, 2013.
/s/ Mark E. Fuller
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?