Parker v. The Alabama Space Science Exhibit Commission

Filing 27

OPINION AND ORDER: it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, AND DECREE of the court that the 19 motion to transfer filed by dft Alabama Space Science Exhibit Commission is granted and this lawsuit is transferred in its entirety to the United States District Cour t for the Northern District of Alabama; All other pending motions remain for resolution by the transferee court; 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 12/14/2015. (wcl, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
MILTON PARKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE ALABAMA SPACE SCIENCE
EXHIBIT COMMISSION d/b/a
U.S. Space And Rocket
Center,
Defendant.

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

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:15cv40-MHT
(WO)

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff

Milton

Parker

brought

this

lawsuit

against his employer, defendant Alabama Space Science
Exhibit
demoted

Commission,
and

claiming

constructively

that

terminated

the
him

Commission
from

his

position on the basis of his age, in violation of the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (‘ADEA’),
specifically, 29 U.S.C. § 623(a), and then retaliated
against him when he complained of this treatment, in
violation

of

the

ADEA,

29

U.S.C.

§ 623(d).

Jurisdiction is proper under 29 U.S.C. § 626 (ADEA) and

28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question).
This matter is before the court on the Commission’s
motion to dismiss the case in its entirety or, in the
alternative, to transfer venue to the Northern District
of Alabama.

In its motion, the Commission argues that

Parker’s first amended complaint should be dismissed
because, as a state agency, it is an arm of the State
and is therefore protected by sovereign immunity.

For

reasons that will be explained, the Commission’s motion
to transfer venue will be granted.

Because the case

will be transferred, the court need not address the
substance of the motion to dismiss.
28 U.S.C. § 1404 gives district courts authority to
transfer any civil action to any district in which it
could have been brought originally for “the convenience
of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.”
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); see McGlathery v. Corizon, Inc.,
2012 WL 1080789, at *1 (M.D. Ala. 2012) (Thompson, J.).
“Trial

judges

weighing

the

are

permitted

conflicting

a

broad

arguments
2

discretion
as

to

in

venue.”

England v. ITT Thompson Indus., Inc., 856 F.2d 1518,
1520 (11th Cir. 1988).
In deciding whether a transfer is proper, courts
“must

engage

in

consideration

an

of

McGlathery, 2012

individualized,
convenience

case-by-case

and

fairness.”

WL 1080789, at *1 (quoting

Stewart

Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988))
(internal quotation marks omitted).
this

inquiry

in

two

steps.

The court conducts

First,

it

determines

whether the case could “originally have been brought in
the proposed transferee district court.”
Next,

it

“must

decide

whether

the

Id. at *1.
balance

of

convenience favors transfer.”

Id.

As to the second

step,

has

outlined

the

Eleventh

Circuit

relevant factors, including
“(1) the convenience of the witnesses;
(2) the location of relevant documents
and the relative ease of access to
sources of proof; (3) the convenience
of the parties; (4) the locus of
operative facts; (5) the availability
of process to compel the attendance of
unwilling witnesses; (6) the relative
means of the parties; (7) a forum's
familiarity with the governing law;
3

several

(8) the weight accorded a plaintiff's
choice
of
forum;
and
(9)
trial
efficiency
and
the
interests
of
justice, based on the totality of the
circumstances.”
Manuel

v.

Convergys

Corp.,

430

F.3d

1132,

1135

n.1

(11th Cir. 2005).
Parker

could

have

Northern District.

properly

brought

suit

in

the

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, “[a] civil

action may be brought in ... 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.”

28

Commission,
subjected

where

to

age

U.S.C.
Parker

§ 1391(b)(1)-(2).
was

employed

discrimination

and

and

The

allegedly

retaliation,

is

located in Huntsville, Alabama, which is within the
Northern District’s jurisdiction and geographic area.
The court must therefore turn to the balance of the
Manuel

factors

appropriate.

to

determine

whether

transfer

is

Because the parties do not rely on--and

have not provided evidence related to--the availability
4

of process to compel witnesses’ attendance at trial,
the means of the parties, or either forum’s familiarity
with applicable law, the court will consider only the
remaining factors.
The Commission relies on the fact that located in
the

Northern

District

are

the

“locus

of

operative

facts” and, it appears from the parties’ filings, all
witnesses
related

who

to--the

will

testify

substance

of

to--and

all

Parker’s

documents

claims.

The

accessibility of sources of proof and the convenience
of all witnesses testifying to the merits of the claims
in

this

case

therefore

weigh

heavily

basis

for

in

favor

of

transfer.
Parker
conclusion.

provides

no

questioning

this

Instead, he argues that, because witnesses

and documents relevant to the Commission’s argument for
dismissal are located in Montgomery, Alabama, which is
within in the Middle District, the Commission’s motion
to transfer venue should be denied.

In other words,

Parker contends that, because he must rely on witnesses
5

and documents in the State’s capital, Montgomery, to
prove that the Commission is not an arm of the State,
and

therefore

to

avoid

dismissal,

transfer

is

inappropriate.
This

argument

is

unavailing.

Parker

offers

no

reason why the court should inconvenience the witnesses
relevant

to

the

merits

of

his

claims

in

order

to

accommodate witnesses and discovery on a narrow, albeit
potentially
court

must

dispositive,
“consider

the

jurisdictional
content

of

issue.

the

The

witnesses’

testimony in determining whether [the convenience of
the witnesses] weighs in favor of transfer.”

Frederick

v. Advanced Financial Solutions, Inc., 558 F. Supp. 2d
699, 704 (E.D. Tex. 2007) (Schell, J.).
limited

number

of

witnesses

related

Because only a
to

a

threshold

issue in the case would benefit from the case being
heard in the Middle District, this factor militates in
favor of transfer.

(Indeed, it is debatable whether

the jurisdictional issue will turn on witness testimony
(as opposed to documentary evidence and statutes) at
6

all.)
Further, the interests of justice and the public
interest weigh in favor of the case being heard in the
Northern District, where the Commission is located and
where the relevant events occurred.

As the Supreme

Court has held, “[t]here is a local interest in having
localized controversies decided at home.”

Gulf Oil

Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 509 (1947); see also
Piper

Aircraft

v.

Reyno,

454

U.S.

235,

260

(1981).

Finally, it appears that Parker himself resides in the
Northern District.

See Mem. Law. Supp. Plf.’s Resp.

Mot. Dismiss or Transfer Venue (doc. no. 16), at 17 n.5
(“The

only

real

convenience

issue

is

whether

the

Plaintiff and the Defendants’ witnesses who reside in
the Northern District of Alabama should be required to
drive to Montgomery for trial.”) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
is

ordinarily

While the plaintiff’s choice of forum
accorded

considerable

deference,

this

deference is lessened--as is the defendant’s burden of
persuasion--when the plaintiff himself does not reside
7

in,

and

the

subject

matter

of

the

lawsuit

is

not

connected to, the district in which the suit was filed.
See Patel v. Howard Johnson Franchise Systems, Inc.,
928 F. Supp. 1099, 1101 (M.D. Ala. 1996) (DeMent, J.).
Based on these facts, a transfer of venue is warranted.
***
Accordingly, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, AND DECREE
of the court that the motion to transfer (doc. no. 19)
filed

by

defendant

Alabama

Space

Science

Exhibit

Commission is granted and this lawsuit is transferred
in its entirety to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama.
All other pending motions remain for resolution by
the transferee court.
The

clerk

of

the

court

is

DIRECTED

to

appropriate steps to effect the transfer.
This case is closed in this court.
DONE, this the 14th day of December, 2015.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

take