LNV CORPORATION v. BRANCH BANKING & TRUST COMPANY

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Accepting Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Transfer Venue to the Eastern District of Texas; Granting Defendant's Alternative Motion to Transfer Venue to Florida. Case transferred to Division of Northern District of Florida. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 4/18/2013) (cea) [Transferred from Texas Northern on 4/19/2013.]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION

LNV CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST
COMPANY,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:12-CV-3803-L (BF)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion to Transfer Venue to Florida
(Doc. 5), filed on October 12, 2012, was referred to Magistrate Judge Paul Stickney, who entered
Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) on
March 12, 2013, recommending that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be denied and Defendant’s
Alternative Motion to Transfer Venue to Florida, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), be granted. The
magistrate judge also recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer Venue to the Eastern District
of Texas, asserted in response Defendant’s motion, be denied.
No objections regarding the magistrate judge’s determination as to Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss were asserted. Plaintiff, however, filed objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation
that Defendant’s Alternative Motion to Transfer Venue to Florida be granted and Plaintiff’s Motion
to Transfer Venue to the Eastern District of Texas be denied. Plaintiff contends that the magistrate
judge erred in: (1) finding that the private interest and second public interest factors weigh in favor
of transfer to the Northern District of Florida; and (2) in denying its request to transfer the case to

Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 1

the Eastern District of Texas. Essentially, Plaintiff contends that the magistrate judge incorrectly
applied the relevant factors and law applicable to a change of venue to the facts of this case.
Regarding the applicable standard of review, Defendant correctly notes that whereas a motion
to dismiss is dispositive, a motion to transfer venue is nondispositive in nature. The court therefore
applies a “clearly erroneous” standard to the magistrate judge’s factual conclusions, a “contrary to
law” standard to the his legal conclusions, and an “abuse of discretion” standard to the “numerous
instances in which magistrate judges exercise discretion in resolving nondispositive matters.” Lahr
v. Fulbright & Jaworski, LLP, 164 F.R.D. 204, 208 (N.D. Tex. 1996). The court “has wide
discretion to determine whether to transfer for the convenience of parties and in the interest of
justice.” Weber v. Coney, 642 F.2d 91, 93 (5th Cir. 1981). “An abuse of discretion exists only when
there is definite and firm conviction that the [magistrate judge] committed clear error of judgment
in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors.” Smith v. Smith, 154 F.R.D. 661,
665 (N.D. Tex. 1994) (quoting Conkling v. Turner, 18 F.3d 1285, 1293 (5th Cir. 1994)).
Having reviewed the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge in light of Plaintiff’s
objections, the court determines that the magistrate judge properly reviewed and considered all of
the relevant factors and facts in determining that this case should be transferred to the Northern
District of Florida rather than the Eastern District of Texas. Accordingly, the court determines that
the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law,
accepts them as those of the court, and overrules Plaintiff’s objections. The court therefore denies
Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer Venue, denies Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, and grants
Defendant’s Alternative Motion to Transfer Venue to Florida. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the

Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 2

court hereby transfers this action to the Northern District of Florida. The clerk of the court shall
effect the transfer in accordance with the usual procedure.
It is so ordered this 18th day of April, 2013.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 3