Griffin et al v. Alamo et al

Filing 294

ORDER denying 153 Joint Motion to Change Venue. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on August 30, 2016. (mll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
VANESSA GRIFFIN, et al
v.

PLAINTIFFS
Civil No. 4:14-cv-4065

TONY ALAMO, et al

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Before the Court is a Joint Motion for Change of Venue filed by Separate Defendants
Advantage Food Group, Advantage Sales, LLC, Ron Decker, Donn Wolf, Steve Lovellette,
Jeanne Estates Apartments, Sanford White, Angela Morales, Action Distributors, Inc., Rite Way
Roofing, Inc., Tommy Scarcello, and Steve Johnson (hereinafter collectively referred to as
“Defendants”). (ECF No. 153). Plaintiffs have responded to the Motion. (ECF No. 157). The
Court finds this matter ripe for consideration.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is the latest in a series of lawsuits related to Tony Alamo, Tony Alamo
Christian Ministries and multiple associated business entities. For the purpose of this order, the
Court will provide only an abridged recitation of the procedural background and facts of this
case.
This suit was filed by Plaintiffs Vanessa Griffin, Marcus Griffin, Brooklyn Howard,
Alsandria Reid, Alphonso Reid, Angela Ondrisek, Nicholas Broderick, Matthew Broderick,
Marissa Broderick, Shaina Broderick, Nathan Griffin, and Alexis Broderick. Plaintiffs were all
children born into families that were a part of Tony Alamo Christian Ministries. The suit seeks
redress for a litany of claims related to their alleged treatment by Defendants, all of whom are
business entities and individuals associated with Tony Alamo and Tony Alamo Christian

Ministries. These claims include: violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, 18 U.S.C.
§ 1595; battery; false imprisonment; outrage/intentional infliction of emotional distress;
negligent hiring, training, retention, and supervision; and negligence.
Defendants move this Court to transfer venue from the Texarkana Division of the
Western District of Arkansas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Specifically, Defendants request
that the Court transfer the case to either the Hot Springs Division or the El Dorado Division
which are both located in the Western District of Arkansas. In support of their motion,
Defendants argue that the Texarkana Division has been saturated with publicity of Tony Alamo,
Tony Alamo Christian Ministries and related litigation.
This prior litigation includes a 2009 criminal trial in which Tony Alamo was convicted of
sexual abuse crimes against five former members of Tony Alamo Christian Ministries. United
States v. Hoffman, 626 F.3d 993 (8th Cir. 2010). In August 2010, these former members filed a
lawsuit seeking to hold Tony Alamo and others civilly liable for the aforementioned abuses.
Kolbek et al v. Twenty First Century Holiness Tabernacle Church, Inc. et al, 4:10-cv-04124. In
June 2011, Alamo was a defendant in another civil action involving claims of battery, outrage,
and conspiracy. The jury issued a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs in that case resulting in an award
of damages totaling $66 million. Ondrisek v. Hoffman, 4:08-cv-4113. The Court also heard
numerous declaratory judgment actions which sought to avoid liability for any judgments that
resulted from the adjudication of claims against Tony Alamo and Tony Alamo Christian
Ministries.
All of the aforementioned litigation transpired in the Texarkana Division of the Western
District of Arkansas. Defendants argue that a change of venue is required because it would not
be possible to receive a fair trial, free from undue bias, influence or prejudice due to the media

2

publicity the litigation has garnered throughout the years. Defendants contend that convenience
also favors transfer because most of the parties and their attorneys reside or have offices in Little
Rock, which is closer in proximity to the Hot Springs Division than the Texarkana Division.
Moreover, Defendants assert that many of the identified witnesses reside out of state and that a
venue closer to Little Rock would be more convenient given its larger commercial airport.
Lastly, Defendants suggest that transfer would help mitigate the costs of litigation and allow for
greater access to both parties’ records and documentation, most of which are located in counsels’
Little Rock offices.
In opposing the motion to transfer venue, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants have not met
the burden of showing that a change of venue is warranted. In particular, Plaintiffs emphasize
that the previous litigation also garnered extensive media coverage in the areas encompassing the
El Dorado and Hot Springs Divisions. As a result, Plaintiffs argue that their choice of forum
would not be unduly prejudicial in comparison with other divisions. Plaintiffs also argue that the
fact that most Plaintiffs reside in Little Rock is irrelevant because Plaintiffs’ choice should take
precedence regardless of whether it inconveniences them. Plaintiffs also note that many of the
individual Defendants that reside out of state may utilize the Texarkana Regional Airport.
Finally, Plaintiffs contend that accessibility of documents and records is of no consequence given
modern technological advances such as computers and email.
DISCUSSION
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the
interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division
where it might have been brought.” The Eighth Circuit requires that the Court “give considerable
deference to a plaintiff’s choice of forum and thus the party seeking transfer under section

3

1404(a) typically bears the burden of proving that a transfer is warranted.” Terra Int’l. Inc.v.
Miss. Chem. Corp., 119 F.3d 688, 695 (8th Cir. 1997). In analyzing a motion to transfer under
section 1404(a), the Court employs a three factor balancing test considering “(1) the convenience
of the parties, (2) the convenience of the witnesses, and (3) the interests of justice.” Id. at 691.
However, the Court is not limited to only these three factors in determining whether a transfer is
proper; instead, the Court must “weigh in the balance a number of case-specific factors.” Stewart
Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 28, 108 S.Ct. 2239, 2244 (1988). The Court must
consider the convenience of the parties, the convenience of the witnesses, the interests of justice,
and all other relevant factors regarding the transfer. Terra Int’l., 119 F.3d at 691. Ultimately, the
Court enjoys “much discretion” when deciding whether to grant such a motion. Id. at 697.
a. Convenience Factors
When balancing the conveniences, the Court may consider such things as: 1) the
convenience of the parties; 2) the convenience of the witnesses—including the willingness of the
witnesses to appear; 3) the accessibility to records and documents; 4) the location where the
conduct complained of occurred; and 5) the applicability of each forum state’s substantive law.
Terra Int’l., 119 F.3d at 696. After balancing these factors, the Court finds that the convenience
factors do not weigh in favor of a transfer.
Defendants contend that the vast majority of Plaintiffs either reside or have immediate
family members who live in the central Arkansas area and that the Hot Springs Division would
be a more convenient venue than the Texarkana Division. This argument is unpersuasive.
Although the Eighth Circuit has remained silent on the question, other courts have held that a
defendant does not have standing to allege that a forum is inconvenient to the plaintiff. See e.g.,
Cressman v. United Air Lines, Inc, 158 F. Supp. 404 (S.D. N.Y. 1958); Holiday Rambler Corp.

4

v. American Motors Corp., 254 F. Supp. 137 (W.D. Mich. 1966). The Court is also unconvinced
that the Hot Springs Division would be more convenient for non-party witnesses. Defendants
only assume that many of the witnesses would benefit from the Hot Springs Division’s proximity
to the Clinton Airport and provide no evidence to support the conclusion that any of the
witnesses would be unwilling to appear in the Texarkana Division. Furthermore, the burden
imposed due to the parties’ records being located in Little Rock is minimal because the parties
can easily access and exchange documents electronically. Finally, the Court finds that the
Texarkana Division is more appropriate because most of the conduct giving rise to Plaintiffs’
complaint occurred in the area encompassing the Texarkana Division.
b. Interests of Justice Factors
The Court also finds that the interests of justice do not weigh in favor of a transfer. In
determining what is in the interests of justice under § 1404, the Court may consider: 1) judicial
economy; 2) the plaintiff’s choice of forum; 3) the comparative costs to the parties of litigating in
each forum; 4) each party’s ability to enforce a judgment; 5) obstacles to a fair trial; 6) conflicts
of law; and 7) the advantage of having a local court determine questions of local law. Terra
Int’l., 119 F.3d at 696. Defendants contend that the interests of justice favor transfer to another
district. Specifically, Defendants believe that the chosen forum presents obstacles to a fair trial
due to an overwhelming amount of adverse publicity and a biased community of potential jurors.
In addition, Defendants argue that the cost of litigating in the proposed venues are substantially
less than the current venue, and that judicial economy favors transfer because it will require a
less intensive voir dire process than one within the Texarkana Division.
The Court notes that a transfer of venue in a civil case based solely upon presumed
prejudice from pre-trial publicity is not common, or even precedented, within the Eighth Circuit.

5

Nonetheless, the Court will analyze Defendants’ arguments by applying principles set out in
criminal cases involving pre-trial publicity, as this is the only framework available.
Defendants ask the Court to change the venue of this case on the basis of “presumed
prejudice.” Under a presumed prejudice analysis, Defendants must show that pre-trial publicity
is “so extensive that a . . . court is required to presume unfairness of constitutional magnitude.”
U.S. v. Rodriguez, 581 F.3d 775, 785 (8th Cir. 2009). Importantly, “[a] presumption of prejudice
. . . attends only the extreme case.” Skilling v. U.S., 130 S.Ct. 2896, 2915-16 (2010). Verdicts
have only been overturned where there existed a “trial atmosphere that was utterly corrupted by
press coverage.” Id. at 2914 (quoting Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 798–799, 95 S.Ct. 2031,
44 L.Ed.2d 589 (1975)).

Extensive coverage by the media “does not necessarily produce

prejudice, and juror impartiality . . . does not require ignorance.” Id. Even “pervasive, adverse
publicity . . . does not inevitably lead to an unfair trial.” Id. at 2916 (quoting Nebraska Press
Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 554, 96 S.Ct. 2791 (1976)). To create a presumption of prejudice,
“the coverage must be inflammatory or accusatory,” not simply informative. U.S. v. Allee, 299
F.3d 996, 1000 (8th Cir. 2002).
Defendants point out that the aforementioned litigation involving Tony Alamo, Tony
Alamo Christian Ministries, and members of Alamo’s church has been the subject of extensive
media coverage throughout the seven-county community of the Texarkana Division from which
the jury will be chosen. In support of this proposition, Defendants provide six news stories from
the Texarkana Gazette concerning Alamo and his associated legal issues. However, the Court is
not persuaded that the evidence submitted shows an extreme amount of media coverage that
requires this Court to presume that the trial process has been utterly corrupted and infiltrated by
prejudice.

6

In Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 355, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600 (1966),
presumed prejudice was found where there was “months [of] virulent publicity” about a
defendant and the murder he was accused of committing, and “bedlam reigned at the courthouse
during the trial.” In United States v. Allee, 299 F.3d 996, 1000 (8th Cir. 2002), presumed
prejudice was not found even where there were two-hundred news articles about the crime
spanning a period of two months-to-one year before trial. As illustrated by these examples, the
media coverage surrounding this case simply does not rise to the level needed for a finding of
presumed prejudice. While members of the community may be aware of Tony Alamo’s legal
history through the large amount of coverage, awareness alone does not necessitate a transfer of
venue. Furthermore, Defendants have not alleged that the media coverage has been particularly
inflammatory or accusatory. In addition, Tony Alamo’s criminal trial on sexual abuse charges
concluded over six years ago. A significant amount of time has also passed since the dismissal of
the civil action filed by Alamo’s sexual abuse victims. The time that has lapsed since these
proceedings significantly undercuts Defendants’ arguments for transfer.
The Court is also unpersuaded by Defendants’ arguments that the comparative costs of
litigation and judicial economy favor transfer. Although the Court recognizes that the cost of
traveling to the Texarkana Division may be higher than other divisions and that voir dire might
require more time, these factors do not outweigh the interest that the Texarkana Division has in
resolving this dispute.
CONCLUSION
The Court has considered all arguments presented regarding the transfer of this case and
finds that Defendants have not met their burden of proving that a transfer is warranted.

7

Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants’ Joint Motion for Change of Venue under 28
U.S.C. §1404(a) should be and hereby is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 30th day of August, 2016.

/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge

8