ABRAMS et al v. STUCKEY

Filing 5

ORDER granting 4 Motion to Change Venue. The Clerk is directed to transfer this case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Following the transfer, the Clerk shall terminate all deadlines and motions, and close this case. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 10/21/2014. (thb) [Transferred from Georgia Southern on 10/22/2014.]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION

LUCIOUS ABRAMS,
R.C.

JR.

and

*

ABRAMS,

*
*

Plaintiffs,

*
*

v.

'

*

CV 114-190

*

C. BRIAN STUCKEY,

District

Director, Farm Service Agency,
United States Department Of
Agriculture,
Defendant.

ORDER

Presently pending before
transfer

venue,

District

Court

with
for

Plaintiff's

the

reasons stated herein,

District

matter

Plaintiffs'

("TRO"),

comes

motion

Court

is

consent,
of

Defendant's
to

Columbia

the
(Doc.

motion to

United
4) .

States
For

the

the motion is GRANTED.
I.

This

the

for

BACKGROUND

before
entry

the
of

a

Court

on

temporary

removal,

following

restraining

order

which was granted in the Superior Court of Burke County,

Georgia.

(Doc.

1.)

There,

Plaintiffs

sought

a

TRO

to

prevent

foreclosure on a 350-acre tract of land due to nonpayment of loans

from

the

Farm

Agriculture

Service

("USDA") .

Agency

and

United

(Doc. 1, Ex. 1.)

States

Department

of

The motion for a TRO was

based upon a pending motion to vacate and set aside an arbitrator's
decision filed in the District Court for the District of Columbia,

which, if granted, would allegedly prevent foreclosure.

(Doc. 4.)

A brief background into the arbitrator's decision is helpful
to understand the underlying claims.
for

the

District

farmers

who

of

Columbia

alleged

that

In 1998,

certified a

the

USDA

class

the District Court
of African-American

discriminated

against

applications for farm loans and benefit programs.

(Doc.

court

them

claims

allowed

individual

claimants

to

decisions by a third-party neutral.
submitted

one

of

these

resolve

(Id.)

so-called

4.)

That

through

Lucious Abrams,

"Pigford

claims,"

in

Jr.1

which

was

dismissed by the arbitrator for failure to show a prima facie case
of discrimination.

(Id.)

filed

in

a

complaint

On October 14,

the

District

2008,

Court

Lucious Abrams,

for

the

District

Jr.

of

Columbia alleging the dismissal of his Pigford claim violated due
process,

which the court dismissed on August 24,

September 18,
and

Lucious

2014,

Lucious Abrams, Sr. and Sons,

Abrams,

Jr.

filed

a

complaint

2009.

(Id.)

On

the partnership,

to

set

aside

the

arbitrator's decision dismissing the Pigford claim.

On October 8,

2014,

a

the

court

October 24,

1

ordered

2014.

Plaintiffs

United States

to

file

response

by

(Id.)

inherited

Lucious Abrams, Sr.
three of his sons,

the

the

land

at

issue

from

their

father,

the

late

Mr. Abrams, through a
Jr., Herbert Abrams,

partnership with
and R.C. Abrams

operated a partnership known as Lucious Abrams, Sr. & Sons.

The partnership

received

of

business.

federal

("Mr. Abrams").
Lucious Abrams,

farm

Five of Mr.

loans

Abrams'

to

assist

in

the

operation

the

farm's

daughters brought an identical complaint in

the Superior Court of Burke County,

which was also removed to this Court.

See Zennie Houston, Betty Turner, Frances Ross, Jesse Mae Abrams, and Florine
Watson v. C. Brian Stuckey, No. l:14-cv-191, Doc. 1 (S.D. Ga. 2014).
2

II.

As

DISCUSSION

a preliminary matter,

the

Court

Southern District of Georgia is proper,
property

that

district.

28

is

the

U.S.C.

subject

of

the

§ 1391(b)(2).

notes
as

that venue

in the

a "substantial part of

action

is

Even so,

situated"

in

this

a district court may

transfer an action to any other district where the action may have
been brought or to any district to which all parties have consented
"[f]or

the

interest

of

convenience

of

justice[.]"

parties

and

witnesses

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

requires a two-part analysis:

[and]

This

must

determine

the

inquiry thus

(1) the Court must determine if this

action could have been brought in the alternate venue;
Court

in

whether

the

convenience

of

and (2)
parties

the
and

witnesses, as well as the interest of justice, require transfer.

Addressing the first

part,

this action could have

been brought in the District of Columbia.
LLC v. Sony Computer Entm't Am. LLC,

(S.D.

Fla.

transferee

2014)

("An

district

action

if

that

See Game Controller Tech

994 F. Supp.

might

initially

have

district

2d 1268,

been
has

1272-73

brought
subject

in

a

matter

jurisdiction over the action, venue is proper, and the parties are
amenable

to

service

of

process

in

the

transferee

forum.")

Personal and subject matter jurisdiction are both proper in the
District

of

transfer and

contract

Columbia,

(2)

governs

as

Plaintiffs

have

(1)

consented

to

the

sued an agency of the United States in which a

the

relationship.

28

Baragona v. Kuwait & Gulf Link Transp. Co.,

U.S.C.

§ 1346(a)(2);

594 F. Supp. 2d 1351,

1360

(N.D.

himself

Ga.

the

to

contract

2009)

jurisdiction

in

court.").

advance

("An

to

in

of

submit

Additionally,

headquartered

individual

to

venue

Washington,

a

is

may

court
the

by

See

because

28

subject

appearance

jurisdiction

proper

D.C.

voluntarily

or

of

a

the

U.S.C.

may

given

USDA

is

§ 1391(e)(1)

(venue is proper in any district where a defendant resides).
Finally, the Court finds that the United States District Court
for

the

District

transfer

is

in

of

Columbia

the

interest

is

of

a

more

convenient

justice.

Here,

forum

the

and

facts

that

and

circumstances that form the basis for the TRO presently are being
litigated

in

inextricably
Columbia,

516847,

District

tied

to

the

and this Court

unnecessary
money."

the

of

Columbia.

pending

action

at *1

(S.D.

Accordingly,

Pirelli Tire LLC,

Fla.

in

TRO

the

District

Feb.

22,

conserve
No.

time,

energy,

07-80453-CIV,

DIRECTED

to

and in light of Plaintiffs'

TRANSFER

thus

of

this

and

2008 WL

2008).

consent to transfer,

Defendant's motion to transfer venue is hereby GRANTED.
is

is

finds transfer proper in order "to avoid

inconvenience . . . and to

Gonzalez v.

The

case

Court for the District of Columbia.

to

the

United

States

Following transfer,

is shall terminate all deadlines and motions,

The Clerk
District

the Clerk

and CLOSE this case.

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this_(Q^ '

day of October,

2014.

HONORABJlE-<r. RANDAL HALL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5QUTBE£n DISTRICT OF GEORGIA