Drake v. FedEx Ground Package System Inc. et al
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 1/28/2025. ***Copy mailed to Pro Se Plaintiff on 1/28/2025*** (mws)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ERIC DRAKE,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-00423CFC
FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE
SYSTEM, INC., FEDEX
CORPORATION, AND FEDEX
EXPRESS FSC MERGER SUB,
LLC
Defendants.
Eric Drake, Duluth, Georgia, Pro Se.
Michele D. Allen, ALLEN & ASSOCIATES, Wilmington, Delaware
Counsel for Defendants
MEMORANDUM OPINION
January 28, 2024
Wilmington, Delaware
ct. 70 ~
COLM F
NNOLL y
CHIEF JUDGE
Plaintiff Eric Drake has sued Defendants FedEx Ground Package System,
Inc. (FGPS), FedEx Corporation, and FedEx Express FSC Merger Sub, LLC
(FedEx Express), alleging civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. D.I. 2.
Drake proceeds pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(D.I. 4). Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative
to Transfer Venue (D.I. 6).
I.
BACKGROUND
This action is in all material respects the same action Drake filed against
FGPS, FedEx Corporation, and Frederick W. Smith, among other defendants, in
the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. See
Complaint, Drake v. FedEx Ground Package Sys. , Inc., No. 2:21-cv-02636 (W.D.
Tenn. Oct. 7, 2021), ECF No. 1. As he did in the Western District case, Drake
alleges in this action that FGPS engaged in intentional racial discrimination in
contracting when a FedEx employee delayed the delive1y of Drake's package by
two days and used racial slurs against Drake, who is African American. See D.I. 71 at~~ 16-104; D.I. 2 at~~ 25-114.
The district court in the Western District transferred the case to the Northern
District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) because the events giving rise to the
suit occurred in Texas, the suit had no connection to the Western District of
Tennessee, and Drake's choice of forum was likely informed by filing restrictions
that he faces in Texas federal courts and therefore Drake's choice of the Western
District of Tennessee as a forum deserved limited deference. Drake v. FedEx
Ground Package Sys., Inc., 2024 WL 1509677, at *4-8 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 12,
2024).
"As a result of his vexatious filing history," Drake is prohibited from
prosecuting any lawsuit in a court that lies within the Fifth Federal Judicial Circuit
until he pays a $2,000 sanction, and, then, only if he receives permission from the
court. See D.I. 7-3. After the case was transferred to the Northern District of
Texas, the district court there gave Drake thirty days to comply with this filing
restriction. See D.l. 7-3. When Drake did not pay his sanction, the court closed his
case. Order, Drake v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., No. 3:24-cv-00571-X-BK
(N.D. Tex. Apr. 5, 2024), ECF 96.
Drake then initiated this action with the filing of a complaint that is
essentially identical to the third amended complaint he filed in Western District of
Tennessee.
Compare D.I. 2 and D.I. 7-1. Drake requests the same relief he
sought in the Western District: damages for alleged racial discrimination by a
FedEx delivery driver on December 16, 2020. D.I. 2 ,r 2. Drake alleges that the
driver's racially discriminatory language, as well as FGPS 's failure to train and
2
supervise the driver, impaired Drake from enforcing his existing contractual
relationship with FGPS to have a package delivered to him, and thus, in Drake's
view, violated§ 1981. D.I. 2 ,r,r 31-114.
The alleged discriminatory acts and the delayed package delivery occurred
entirely in the Northern District of Texas. D.I. 2 ,r 78. The sole connection
Delaware has with the case is the fact that all three Defendants are Delaware
entities. D.I. 2 ,r,r 6-8.
II.
LEGAL STANDARDS
Section 1404(a) provides that "[fJor the convenience of the parties and
witnesses, in the interests of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to
any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or
division to which all parties have consented." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Since Drake
does not consent to a transfer of the action to the Northern District of Texas, a
transfer to that court is permitted under § 1404(a) only if the case "might have been
brought" there.
Although there is "no definitive formula or list of the factors to consider" in
a transfer analysis, the Third Circuit identified in Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55
F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir. 1995), twelve interests "protected by the language of
§ 1404(a)." Id. Six of those interests are private:
[ 1] plaintiffs forum preference as manifested in the original
choice; [2] the defendant's preference; [3] whether the claim
3
arose elsewhere; [4] the convenience of the parties as indicated
by their relative physical and financial condition; [5] the
convenience of the witnesses-but only to the extent that the
witnesses may actually be unavailable for trial in one of the
fora; and [6] the location of books and records (similarly
limited to the extent that the files could not be produced in the
alternative forum).
Id. (citations omitted). The other six interests are public in nature:
[7] the enforceability of the judgment; [8] practical
considerations that could make the trial easy, expeditious, or
inexpensive; [9] the relative administrative difficulty in the two
fora resulting from court congestion; [IO] the local interest in
deciding local controversies at home; [ 11] the public policies of
the fora; and [12] the familiarity of the trial judge with the
applicable state law in diversity cases.
Id at 879-80 (citations omitted).
III.
DISCUSSION
Defendants have consented to personal jurisdiction in the Northern District
of Texas by requesting transfer to that district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2) and
§ 13 91 (b )( 1). In addition, all the events giving rise to this suit occurred in Dallas,
Texas, which is located in the Northern District of Texas. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).
The Jumara factors weigh heavily in favor of transferring the case to the Northern
District of Texas, and therefore I will grant Defendants' request to transfer the
case.
4
1.
Plaintiff's Forum Preference
This factor typically weighs against strongly against transfer. Indeed, the
plaintiffs choice of venue is given "paramount consideration" in the normal case.
VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp., 2018 WL 5342650, at *2-*6 (D. Del. Oct. 29,
2018 ). This plaintiff and this case, however, are anything but normal.
Drake is a prolific and, all too often, abusive filer of suits in federal and state
courts. He currently has three cases pending in this court. As best I can tell, he has
filed more than 140 cases or appeals in federal courts in thirteen states over the
course of the last two decades. See Drake v. Nie/lo Co., 2020 WL 1182575, at *4
(E.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL
1937760 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2020). Drake claims a wide variety of domiciles
using P.O. Box addresses and files suits under different variations of his name, or
even pseudonyms. See Drake v. U.S. Freedom Cap., LLC, 2021 WL 3566859, at
*9 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 12, 2021) (listing examples of his pseudonyms, such as "Eric
Erpel"); Drake v. 7-Eleven Inc., 2020 WL 4196189 at *3 n.3 (S.D. Ga. June 26,
2020) (identifying at least seven domiciles claimed by Drake over the course of
two years); Drake v. Apple, Inc., 2024 WL 4891948 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 26, 2024)
(transferring Drake's case sua sponte for improper venue after he would not submit
a sworn document explaining the basis for his prior assertion of Wisconsin
5
citizenship, but rather alleged to have "mistakenly called himself a Wisconsin
citizen because of a cutting-and-pasting error.")
Federal courts in Texas and Georgia have deemed Drake a "vexatious
litigant" and subjected him to filing restrictions and fines because of his "insulting
and disparaging" pleadings and "abusive attempts to sue judges, the spouses of
lawyers, and anyone who had displeased him in even the most tenuous connection
with a seemingly unlimited array of claims." Drake v. Travelers Indem. Co., 2022
WL 4138355 at * 1, *3 ( 5th Cir. Apr. 28, 2022); Drake v. Travelers Com. Ins. Co.,
2020 WL 3454585 (S.D. Ga. May 27, 2020), report and recommendation adopted,
2020 WL 3453853 (S.D. Ga. June 24, 2020). Because of his litigation abuses in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, the court
there has warned Drake that "the filing of any future lawsuit determined to be
frivolous or harassing in nature will likely result in the imposition of monetary
sanctions against [him]." Drake v. Nie/lo Co., 2020 WL 1182575, at *4 (E.D. Cal.
Mar. 12, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 1937760 (E.D.
Cal. Apr. 22, 2020). Texas state courts have also deemed Drake to be a vexatious
litigant, and he is prohibited from filing suits in those courts unless he receives
authorization from an administrative judge. See Drake v. Costume Armour, Inc.,
736 F. App'x 505 (5th Cir. 2018).
6
This case is Drake's second effort to circumvent the filing restrictions put in
place by the Fifth Circuit. And I will follow the lead of the Western District and
not give the deference to Drake's forum choice that a plaintiff's choice normally
enjoys. See Drake v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 2024 WL 1509677, at *6.
Indeed, I will go one step further and give no deference to Drake's forum choice.
To do otherwise would in effect make this court a sanctuary jurisdiction in which
Drake could evade the penalties and restrictions imposed by the Fifth Circuit. See
In re Tripati, 836 F .2d 1406, 1407 (D.C. Cir. 1988) {"Transfer is indeed
appropriate ... to avoid the prospect of a litigant using one district court as a safe
haven from the lawful orders of another."). Accordingly, this factor is neutral.
2.
Defendant's Forum Preference
This factor favors transfer.
3.
Whether the Claim Arose Elsewhere
This factor favors transfer. None of the events giving rise to Drake's claims
occurred in Delaware. All the alleged facts giving rise to the complaint occurred in
Dallas, Texas. D.I. 2 ,I 78. "[I]f there are significant connections between a
particular venue and the events that gave rise to a suit, this factor should be
weighed in that venue's favor." Intel!. Ventures I LLC v. Checkpoint Software
Techs. Ltd., 791 F. Supp. 2d 4 72, 481 (D. Del. 2011) (internal citation omitted).
7
4.
The Convenience of the Parties as Indicated by Their Relative
Physical and Financial Condition
This factor favors transfer. Courts determine the convenience of the forum
by considering: "( 1) the parties' physical location; (2) the associated logistical and
operational costs to the parties in traveling to Delaware-as opposed to the
proposed transferee district-for litigation purposes; and (3) the relative ability of
each party to bear these costs in light of its size and financial wherewithal."
Tumbaga v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 2020 WL 4673907, at *3 (D. Del Aug. 12,
2020). Drake is not a resident of Delaware. He has provided an address in Dallas,
Texas, and claims to be a citizen of Georgia. D.I. 2-2; D.I. 2 ,r 15. Potential
witnesses, like the FedEx employee Drake accuses of casting slurs against him or
the individual Drake alleges overheard the incident, see D.I. 2 ,r 130, are more
likely to reside in Texas, where the incident occurred. It is true that Defendants are
Delaware entities, but on balance, this factor favors transfer.
5.
The Convenience of Witnesses to the Extent They May Actually
be Unavailable for Trial in One of the Fora
This factor is neutral, as neither party alleges that any witnesses would be
unavailable for trial in either forum.
6.
The Location of Books and Records
This factor is neutral. Jumara instructs me to give weight to the location of
books and records only "to the extent that the files [and other documentary
8
evidence] could not be produced in the alternative forum." 55 F.3d at 879.
Neither party alleges that the books and records in this action could not be
produced in either forum.
7.
The Enforceability of the Judgment
This factor is neutral, as there are no allegations that a judgment would be
unenforceable in either forum.
8.
Practical Considerations
This factor favors transfer. Jumara instructs me to give weight to "practical
considerations that could make the trial easy, expeditious, or inexpensive."
55 F.3d at 879. Neither Drake nor Defendants has a connection with Delaware
other than Defendants' corporate status. See Allen Med. Sys., Inc. v. Mizuho
Orthopedic Sys., Inc., 2022 WL 1046258, at *3 (D. Del. 2022) (finding Jumara
factor eight favored transfer because "neither Plaintiffs nor [Defendant] has a
connection with Delaware other than [Defendant's] incorporation status").
Conversely, Drake, the FedEx driver involved in the alleged underlying incident,
and any other witnesses of the event are likely located in Texas.
9.
Relative Administrative Difficulty Due to Court Congestion
This factor is neutral. This civil dockets of this Court and the District Court
in the Northern District of Texas are similar in size. See U.S. District CourtsCombined Civil and Criminal Federal Court Management Statistics (September 30,
9
2024), ADMIN OFF. OF THE U.S. CTS., https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/datatables/2024/09/30/federal-court-management-statistics/n-a-1
fhttps://perma.cc/D3UJ-PURG] (reporting that 466 civil cases per active judgeship
were filed in the Northern District of Texas and 383 civil cases per active
judgeship were filed in the District of Delaware between October 1, 2023 and
September 30, 2024).
10.
Local Interest in Deciding Local Controversies at Home
This factor favors transfer. Because the alleged civil rights violation
happened in Texas and because of the sanctions imposed against Drake by the
Fifth Circuit, the Northern District of Texas has a strong interest in deciding the
dispute. Delaware has no connection to, or interest in addressing, the alleged
events giving rise to this action.
11.
Public Policies of the Fora
This factor favors transfer. Drake's complaint alleges that he experienced
"systemic race discrimination" in Dallas, Texas. D.I. 2 at 2. Texas therefore has
an interest in deciding the merits of Drake's claims and ensuring their consistent
adjudication. Delaware has no interest in addressing Drake's claims. Although
"Delaware's public policy encourages Delaware corporations to resolve their
disputes in Delaware courts," that "concern is irrelevant since [Plaintiff] is not a
Delaware corporation, and the defendant[s], which [are] Delaware corporation[s],
10
[do] not want to litigate here." Rea/time Data LLC v. Egnyte, Inc., 2018 WL
5724040, at *6 (D. Del. Nov. 1, 2018).
12.
Familiarity of the Trial Judges with the Applicable State Law in
Diversity Cases
This factor is neutral, as this case is not a diversity action and does not
implicate state law. See PujJCorp. v. KandyPens, Inc., 2020 WL 6318708, at *6
(D. Del. Oct. 28, 2020).
* ***
In sum, of the twelve Jumara factors, six weigh in favor of transfer and six
are neutral. Considered in their totality, the factors weigh strongly in favor of
transfer to the Northern District of Texas.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, I will grant Defendants' motion insofar as
it seeks the transfer of the case to the Northern District of Texas. I will deny the
motion without prejudice insofar as it seeks dismissal of the case.
The Court will issue an Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion.
11
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?