Hough et al v. Ag South Farm Credit, ACA

Filing 13

ORDER: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or Transfer Venue to the District Court of South Carolina 7 is granted to the extent discussed herein. The Clerk of the Court shall transfer this case to the United States District Court of South Carolina for all further proceedings. After transfer, the Clerk shall close this case. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 12/9/2016. (LN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

JAMES N. HOUGH, GENA G. HOUGH,
and WHITFIELD FARMS, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 8:16-cv-3066-T-30AEP

AGSOUTH FARM CREDIT, ACA,
Defendant.
_____________________________________/

ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or
Transfer Venue to the District Court of South Carolina (Dkt. 7) and Plaintiffs’ Response
(Dkt. 12). Upon consideration of the motion, response, and being otherwise advised in the
premises, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to the extent that this case will be transferred
to the District Court of South Carolina.
DISCUSSION
Defendant’s motion and memorandum of law (Dkts. 7, 8) reflect that all of the events
that occurred in this action occurred in South Carolina. Defendant argues, in relevant part,
that transfer is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The Court agrees. Notably, Plaintiffs’
two-page response, which contains approximately four paragraphs, does not address the
merits of Defendant’s section 1404(a) argument. Thus, this issue requires little attention

from this Court because Plaintiffs essentially concede that venue in South Carolina is
appropriate. Moreover, a review of the complaint reflects that all of Plaintiffs’ claims relate
to the foreclosure action Defendant filed against Plaintiff Whitfield Farms in South Carolina.
In fact, Defendant points out that Plaintiffs’ claims in this case are nearly identical to claims
that Plaintiffs attempted to bring before the court in the South Carolina action.
In sum, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides that “[f]or the convenience of the 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.” A review of the complaint, coupled
with Plaintiffs’ failure to raise any relevant argument against transfer, reflect that this case
should be transferred under section 1404(a). Defendant has shown that the “balance of the
conveniences is strongly in favor of the transfer.” Sterling v. Provident Life and Accident
Ins. Co., 519 F. Supp. 2d 1195, 1204-06 (M.D. Fla. 2007) (internal quotations and citations
omitted) (emphasis added).
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1.

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or Transfer Venue to the District Court of
South Carolina (Dkt. 7) is granted to the extent discussed herein.

2.

The Clerk of the Court shall transfer this case to the United States District
Court of South Carolina for all further proceedings.

Page 2 of 3

3.

After transfer, the Clerk shall close this case.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on December 9, 2016.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record
S:\Even\2016\16-cv-3066.grantmt-transfer-venue7.wpd

Page 3 of 3