Drake v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company et al
Filing
36
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 1/29/2025. ***Copy mailed to Pro Se Plaintiff on 1/30/2025*** (mws)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ERIC DRAKE,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-00845CFC
V.
STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY, ET AL.,
Defendants.
Eric Drake, Duluth, Georgia, Pro Se.
"J" Jackson Shrum, Wilmington, Delaware
(;ounsel for Defendants Miles Henry Sheerin and Sara Sheerin
MEMORANDUM OPINION
January 29, 2024
Wilmington, Delaware
CL ~
-CONNOLLY
CHIEF JUDGE
Plaintiff Eric Drake has sued Defendants State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company (State Farm), the CEO of State Farm, several officers in the
Dallas (Texas) Police Department, several district attorneys in Dallas County,
Texas, several federal and state judges in Texas, and more than fifty other
individuals. Drake alleges federal constitutional and related state law claims.
D.I. 6. He proceeds pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in for ma
pauperis (D.I. 5). The only two Defendants who have been served summonses,
Miles Henry Sheerin and Sara Sheerin, have moved to dismiss or alternatively to
transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas. D.I. 33.
I.
BACKGROUND
Drake is a prolific and, all too often, abusive filer of suits in federal and state
courts. He filed two cases in addition to this case in this Court last year. See
Drake v. General Electric Company et al. , No. l:24-cv-00281-CFC (D. Del. filed
Mar. 4, 2024); Drake v. FedEx Ground Package System Inc. et al., No. 1:24-cv00423-CFC (D. Del. Jan. 28, 2025). As best I can tell, he has filed more than 140
cases or appeals in federal courts in thi1teen states over the course of the last two
decades. See Drake v. Niello Co., 2020 WL 1 I 82575, 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 .0. 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 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 *I, *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). "As a result of his vexatious filing
2
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 ifhe receives permission from the court. See Order, Drake v. FedEx Ground
Package Sys., Inc., No. 3:24-cv-00571-X-BK (N.D. Tex. Apr. 5, 2024), ECF 96.
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).
The allegations in Drake's 217-page Amended Complaint in this case all
relate to criminal charges and related civil actions brought against him in Texas.
See D.I. 6 ,r,r 7, 67, 74, 82, 112, 123, 135, 260, 358, 378-382, 398,441. He alleges
that the attorneys, law enforcement, judges, and insurance company employees
involved in those cases, as well as one of his alleged victims and several members
of her family, have racially discriminated against him, defamed him, and violated
his constitutional rights. He seeks monetary damages from the state actors who
3
"falsely arrested and imprison[ ed] him," injunctive relief from filing restrictions
placed upon him by Texas courts and from criminal prosecution in the state of
Texas, and a related declaratory judgment. D.I. 6 ,r 11.
The alleged discriminatory acts, defamatory statements, and constitutional
violations occurred entirely in Dallas County, which is in the Northern District of
Texas. Drake alleges that this District is an appropriate forum to adjudicate his
claims because State Farm "does business in the state of Delaware" and Drake "is
relocating to the state of Delaware." D.I. 6 ,r,r 12, 36.
II.
LEGAL STANDARDS
Section 1404(a) provides that "[f]or 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:
4
[1] plaintiffs forum preference as manifested in the
original choice; [2] the defendant's preference; [3]
whether the claim 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; [10] 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
Venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas because all the events
giving rise to this suit occurred in Dallas, 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 I will therefore transfer the case.
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.
5
VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp., 2018 WL 5342650, at *2-*6 (D. Del. Oct. 29,
2018). This case, however, is not a normal case.
Drake makes clear in the Amended Complaint that he has filed this action in
this District to circumvent and challenge the filing restrictions imposed upon him
in the Northern District of Texas by the Fifth Circuit. He alleges in the Amended
Complaint that he "has been unable to file any pleadings in the Northern District of
Texas, because of alleged filing sanctions" and that "[a]s such, [he] has named [as
Defendants] all district and magistrate judges in the Northern District of Texas."
D.I. 6 ,r 1. For this reason, I will not give the deference to Drake's forum choice
that a plaintiffs choice normally enjoys. "To do otherwise would in effect make
this court a sanctuary jurisdiction in which Drake could evade the sanctions
imposed by the Fifth Circuit." Memorandum Opinion at 7, Drake v. FedEx
Ground Package Sys., Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00423-CFC (D. Del. Jan. 28, 2024), ECF
15; see also 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. The Sheerins reside in the Northern District of
Texas and have asked me to transfer the case to that district. The remaining
6
Defendants have not been served, but since nearly all those whom Drake identifies
with any degree of specificity are alleged to work in Texas, it may safely be
assumed that they too would want to litigate this action in Texas.
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
the Northern District of Texas. "[I]fthere 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., 797 F. Supp. 2d 4 72, 481 (D. Del. 2011) (internal citation omitted).
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 in Duluth, Georgia. D.I. 6-1; D.I. 6 at 217. The many individual
Defendants that Drake has named are likely still located in Texas, and it stands to
7
reason that many could not easily bear the cost to travel to this forum. See D.I. 6
,r,r 13-41. Potential witnesses, too, are more likely to reside in Texas, where the
alleged incidents occurred.
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 side 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 the Court to give weight to the
location of books and records only "to the extent that the files [and other
documentary evidence] could not be produced in the alternative forum." 55 F.3d at
879. Neither side 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 the Defendants has a connection with Delaware
other than Drake's prospective move and the fact that State Farm "does business"
8
and "has offices" in this jurisdiction. D.I. 6 ,r,i 3, 12. But State Farm also has
offices and does business in Texas. See, e.g.
https://www.statefarm.com/agent/us/tx/dallas [https://perma.cc/88SF-Q2FP]. On
the other hand, Drake and the Defendants all appear to be located in Texas.
9. Relative Administrative Difficulty Due to Court Congestion
This factor is neutral. The 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,
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
[https://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 I, 2023 and
September 30, 2024).
10. Local Interest in Deciding Local Controversies at Home
This factor favors transfer. Because the alleged civil rights violations,
constitutional violations, and defamation are alleged to have occurred 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.
9
11. Public Policies of the Fora
This factor favors transfer. Plaintiffs complaint alleges that he is the victim
of a conspiracy between state actors and private citizens in Texas to deprive him of
his constitutional rights and to harm his reputation in Dallas, Texas. D.I. 2 at 2.
Texas has a powerful interest in deciding the merits of those claims and ensuring
their consistent adjudication.
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 Puff Corp. v. KandyPens, Inc., 2020 WL 6318708, at *6
(D. Del. Oct. 28, 2020).
****
In sum, of the twelve J umara 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.
10
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?