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)

Download PDF
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 “§ 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

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?