BROWN v. CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RAILROAD COMPANY et al

Filing 22

ORDER terminating as moot #18 Motion for Hearing and denying #9 Motion to Transfer Case. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D. LAND on 11/17/2022 (tlf).

Case 4:22-cv-00117-CDL Document 22 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
DARRYL BROWN,
Plaintiff,

*
*

vs.

*

CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RAILROAD
COMPANY, NORFOLK SOUTHERN
RAILWAY COMPANY, and NORFOLK
SOUTHERN CORPORATION,

*

CASE NO. 4:22-CV-117 (CDL)

*
*

Defendants.
*
O R D E R
Defendants move to transfer this action to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

For the

following reasons, the Court denies their motion to transfer (ECF
No. 9).
To transfer an action from a plaintiff’s chosen forum, a
defendant must establish that the action could have been brought
in the proposed transferee forum, that litigating the action in
the transferee forum is more convenient for the parties and/or the
witnesses, and that the transfer is in the interest of justice.
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); see also In re Ricoh Corp., 870 F.2d 570, 573
(11th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (describing the traditional § 1404(a)
burden).

Courts consider several factors in deciding whether to

grant a motion to transfer, including the following:

Case 4:22-cv-00117-CDL Document 22 Filed 11/17/22 Page 2 of 5

(1) the convenience of the witnesses; (2) the location
of relevant documents and the relative ease of access to
sources of proof; (3) the convenience of the parties;
(4) the locus of operative facts; (5) the availability
of process to compel the attendance of unwilling
witnesses; (6) the relative means of the parties; (7) a
forum’s familiarity with the governing law; (8) the
weight accorded a plaintiff’s choice of forum; and
(9) trial efficiency and the interests of justice, based
on the totality of the circumstances.
Manuel v. Convergys Corp., 430 F.3d 1132, 1135 n.1 (11th Cir.
2005).
This

present

retaliation

action

against

arises

Plaintiff,

who

from
was

Defendants’
their

alleged

employee,

for

engaging in protected activities under the Federal Railroad Safety
Act

(“FRSA”),

49

U.S.C.

§ 20109.

These

activities

occurred

primarily in the Northern District of Alabama where Plaintiff
helped

move

Sylacauga,

railcars

Alabama

for

and

a

customer

Birmingham,

of

Defendants

Alabama.

Any

between

documentary

evidence is likely located in the Northern District of Alabama.
Plaintiff

resides

in

Fort

Mitchell,

Alabama,

which

is

approximately twelve miles from the Columbus Division, Middle
District of Georgia, courthouse.

Fort Mitchell is in the Middle

District of Alabama. Defendant Central of Georgia Railroad Company
is a Georgia corporation with its principal place of business in
Atlanta.

It is a subsidiary of Defendant Norfolk Southern Railway

Company, which is a subsidiary of Defendant Norfolk Southern
Corporation.

Both

Norfolk

Southern

2

entities

are

Virginia

Case 4:22-cv-00117-CDL Document 22 Filed 11/17/22 Page 3 of 5

corporations with their principal places of business in Atlanta.
Three potential witnesses arguably live closer to a Northern
District of Alabama courthouse than the Columbus courthouse.
witnesses,

including

Division courthouse.
lives

closer

courthouse.

to

Plaintiff,

live

closer

to

the

Four

Columbus

A dispute exists as to whether one witness

Columbus

or

a

Northern

District

of

Alabama

And two witnesses reside and work in the Northeastern

United States.

The lawyers presently representing Defendants in

this action practice primarily in the Northern District of Alabama.
Plaintiff’s lead lawyer resides and works in the Columbus Division
of the Middle District of Georgia.
No one seriously disputes that this action could have been
brought in the Northern District of Alabama.

But Plaintiff chose

instead to file the action here, and no one seriously disputes
that jurisdiction exists in this Court.

The question is whether

the “convenience factors” weigh sufficiently in favor of a transfer
to a forum different from the one chosen by Plaintiff.

The Court

finds that one factor favors transfer; two weigh against transfer;
and the rest are neutral.
The Northern District of Alabama is the locus of operative
facts.

The events giving rise to the alleged retaliation occurred

there.

Thus, this factor favors transfer.

Plaintiff’s choice of forum weighs heavily against transfer.
Courts traditionally give substantial deference to the plaintiff’s

3

Case 4:22-cv-00117-CDL Document 22 Filed 11/17/22 Page 4 of 5

chosen

forum,

which

should

not

considerations clearly outweigh it.

be

disturbed

unless

other

Robinson v. Giarmarco & Bill,

P.C., 74 F.3d 253, 260 (11th Cir. 1996).
Although Plaintiff resides in Alabama, he lives twelve miles
from the Columbus Division courthouse.

He is not a resident of

the Northern District of Alabama, and the Columbus courthouse is
substantially
courthouse.

closer

than

any

Northern

District

of

Alabama

His lead attorney resides in closer proximity to the

Columbus Division than the Northern District of Alabama.

Given

the obvious disparity in the relative means of the parties, it
would be substantially more burdensome to require Plaintiff to
travel to the Northern District of Alabama to litigate this action
than it would be to require Defendants, who have their principal
places of business approximately 100 miles from the Columbus
Division, to litigate this action here. This factor weighs against
transfer.
The remaining factors are neutral.

Some witnesses would

likely find traveling to Columbus more convenient; others would
prefer

the

Northern

District

of

Alabama.

Columbus

convenient for Plaintiff and his lead counsel.

is

more

The Northern

District of Alabama is arguably more convenient for Defendants and
their counsel.

Given the availability of electronic discovery,

the fact that the paper copies of documents may be located in the
Northern District of Alabama does not necessarily make that forum

4

Case 4:22-cv-00117-CDL Document 22 Filed 11/17/22 Page 5 of 5

more convenient.

No other physical evidence has been identified

that is located in the Northern District of Alabama.
are equally familiar with the applicable law.

Both Courts

Although more

witnesses appear to be subject to the Middle District of Georgia’s
100 miles subpoena power than are subject to that of the Northern
District of Alabama, any of the witnesses could be subpoenaed for
a deposition by the appropriate Court.
neutral.

Thus, this factor is also

Finally, the Court is convinced that the trial can be

conducted justly and efficiently in either jurisdiction.

Thus,

these factors are neutral.
Considering the traditional factors for transfer of venue,
the Court finds that Defendants have not carried their burden of
disturbing Plaintiff’s choice of forum.

Therefore, their motion

must be denied.
CONCLUSION
Because litigating this action in the Northern District of
Alabama is not more convenient for the parties or the witnesses
and

because

a

transfer

is

not

in

the

interest

Defendants’ motion to transfer (ECF No. 9) is denied.

of

justice,

Plaintiff’s

motion for a hearing (ECF No. 18) shall be terminated as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 17th day of November, 2022.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

5