WHITE v. ONE ON ONE MARKETING LLC et al

Filing 18

ORDER denying 15 Motion to Change Venue. This action is dismissed without prejudice for improper venue. 13 Motion for Protective Order is moot. Ordered by U.S. District Judge CLAY D LAND on 10/15/2014. (CGC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
NINA WHITE,

*

Plaintiff,

*

vs.

*

ONE ON ONE MARKETING, LLC,

*

Defendant.

CASE NO. 4:14-CV-40 (CDL)

*
O R D E R

Plaintiff Nina White brought this action under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991 § 3, 47 U.S.C. § 227.
ECF

No.

1.

In

her

Complaint,

White

resident of Savannah, Georgia.
Southern

District

of

U.S.C. § 90(c)(3).

Georgia,

alleged

Id. ¶ 4.
not

the

Compl. ¶ 1,

that

she

was

a

Savannah is in the

Middle

District.

28

The Court thus ordered White to show cause why

this action should not be dismissed for improper venue.

Text

Order, Oct. 6, 2014.
White now asks the Court to transfer this action pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the Eastern District of Virginia, where she
moved after the events giving rise to her Complaint.

Section

1404(a) authorizes a district court to “transfer any civil action
to

any

other

brought.”

28

district
U.S.C. §

or

division

1404(a).

where
Even

it

if

might

White

have

had

been

clearly

explained why this action “might have been brought” in the Eastern
District of Virginia (which she did not), § 1404(a) is not the

correct vehicle for her request because it is undisputed that
venue is not proper in the Middle District of Georgia.

See Van

Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 633 (1964) (noting that Ҥ 1404(a)
operates on the premises that the plaintiff has properly exercised
his venue privilege”); Moore’s Fed. Practice 3d § 111.02(1)(b)(1)
(2014) “Section 1404(a) . . . applies if venue is proper in the
original court[.]”).

White’s motion to transfer venue under §

1404(a) (ECF No. 15) is denied.
The Court observes that White did not seek transfer under the
“improper

venue”

statute,

28

U.S.C. §

1406(a),

which

permits

transfer of an action filed “in the wrong division or district
. . . to any district . . . in which it could have been brought.”
Even if White had invoked § 1406(a), she did not clearly explain
why this action “could have been brought” in the Eastern District
of

Virginia,

so

the

Court

cannot

transfer

this

action

under

§ 1406(a).
In sum, it is clear that venue is not proper in this Court,
and White has not established that transfer is permitted under any
other statutory provision.

Accordingly, this action is dismissed

without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 15th day of October, 2014.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2