Smith v. Hanil E Hwa Interior Systems Alabama, L.L.C. (JOINT ASSIGN)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that: (1) The 9 Order referring this case to Magistrate Judge Paul W. Greene is VACATED; (2) Defendant Hanil E Hwa Interior Systems Alabama, LLC's 14 Motion to Change Venue is GRANTED; (3) this case is TRANSFERRE D to the Southern District of Alabama; and (4) the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to take the necessary steps to effectuate the terms of this order. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 5/19/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(dmn, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
HANIL E HWA INTERIOR
SYSTEMS ALABAMA, LLC,
CASE NO. 2:14-CV-981-WKW
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This case is before the court on Defendant Hanil E Hwa Interior Systems
Alabama, LLC’s Motion to Change Venue, in which Defendant requests that venue
be transferred from the Middle District of Alabama to the Southern District of
Alabama pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). (Doc. # 14.) For the reasons stated
below, the motion is due to be granted.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff Christopher Smith filed this lawsuit on September 24, 2014, in the
Middle District of Alabama. His complaint alleges that he was the victim of sexual
harassment at the hands of his supervisor while he was employed at Defendant’s
Dallas County, Alabama plant. In light of the fact that Mr. Smith’s complaint is
based entirely upon incidences that took place in Dallas County, Alabama,
Defendant seeks a change of venue from the Middle District of Alabama to the
Southern District of Alabama, where Dallas County, Alabama sits. Mr. Smith does
not oppose the transfer of this action.1
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a “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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Accordingly, for this action to be
transferred in accordance with § 1406(a), venue in this district must be improper.
For venue to be proper in this Title VII action, it must be brought (1) in the
judicial district “in which the unlawful employment practice is alleged to have
been committed,” (2) “in the judicial district in which the employment records
relevant to such practice are maintain and administered, or” (3) “in the judicial
district in which the aggrieved person would have worked but for the alleged
unlawful employment practice.”
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3).
highlights, none of the above criteria is met.
First, the alleged unlawful
employment practices that serve as the basis for Mr. Smith’s complaint all
occurred in Dallas County, Alabama. Second, there is no assertion or evidence
Mr. Smith was ordered to show cause on or before May 12, 2015, as to why
Defendant’s motion to change venue should not be granted. (Doc. # 16.) The court explained
that should Mr. Smith fail to respond to the motion, the motion would be deemed unopposed. As
of May 19, 2015, Mr. Smith has not filed an opposition or otherwise responded.
that Defendant maintains or administers employment records relevant to the
conduct alleged at its Montgomery County facility.
Third, Mr. Smith never
worked in Defendant’s Montgomery County facility, nor would he have but for the
alleged unlawful employment practice. Accordingly, venue is not proper in the
Middle District of Alabama.
Based on the foregoing analysis, it is ORDERED that:
The Order (Doc. # 9) referring this case to Magistrate Judge Paul W.
Greene is VACATED;
Defendant Hanil E Hwa Interior Systems Alabama, LLC’s Motion to
Change Venue (Doc. # 14) is GRANTED;
this case is TRANSFERRED to the Southern District of Alabama; and
the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to take the necessary steps to
effectuate the terms of this order.
DONE this 19th day of May, 2015.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF 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?