Williams v. Chase Home Finance, LLC (MAG+)

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER TRANSFERRING this case to the US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC 1406, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 2/11/14. (djy, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
SHIRLEY WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACT. NO. 2:13cv945-MEF
(WO)

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
On December 26, 2013, pro se plaintiff Shirley Williams (“Williams”), filed this
action against defendant Chase Home Finance, LLC, alleging that her constitutional rights
were violated and she was denied due process when the defendant foreclosed on her home.
Based upon its independent review of the complaint,1 the court concludes that the interests
of justice require this case be transferred to the United States District Court for Northern
District of Alabama.
DISCUSSION
In her pro se complaint, Williams alleges that the alleged illegal and unconstitutional
actions occurred during the foreclosure of her home in Birmingham, Alabama, which is
located in the Northern District of Alabama. Transfer of this case is proper pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1406(a), which provides:

1

The complaint filed in this court was on a form for filing petitions for writ of mandamus in the
Supreme Court of Alabama. Notwithstanding the form used by the plaintiff, during a proceeding held on
February 4, 2014, before a United States Magistrate Judge, she confirmed that she meant to file her
complaint in a federal court.

(a) The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the
wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice,
transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been
brought.
In the case at bar, there is no question that venue is proper in the Northern District of
Alabama. All the actions about which Williams complains are alleged to have occurred in
Northern District of Alabama. It appears that most, if not all, the witnesses that would be
knowledgeable about this case are located in the Northern District of Alabama. None of the
complained of events are alleged to have occurred in the Middle District of Alabama and
none of the witnesses appear to be located in the Middle District of Alabama. The plaintiff
does not appear to have any connection to the Middle District of Alabama.
The decision to transfer a case is within the discretion of the trial court with the
propriety of transfer being decided based on the facts of each individual case. See Brown v.
Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 1193, 1196 (11th Cir. 1991); Hutchens v. Bill
Heard Chevrolet Co., 928 F. Supp. 1089, 1090 (M.D.Ala. 1996). “The language of §
1406(a) is amply broad enough to authorize the transfer of cases, however wrong the plaintiff
may have been in filing [her] case as to venue, whether the court in which it was filed had
personal jurisdiction over the defendants or not.” Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463,
466 (1962).
CONCLUSION
Therefore, because the majority of witnesses and evidence associated with this case
are located in the Northern District of Alabama, and there is no question that venue would

2

be proper in the Northern District of Alabama, the court concludes that the interest of justice
demands that this case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama for hearing and determination.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that this case be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1406.
Done this the 11th day of February, 2014.

/s/ Mark E. Fuller
MARK E. FULLER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3