WILLIAMS v. KIA GEORGIA INC

Filing 11

ORDER denying 5 Motion to Dismiss Complaint and denying 6 Motion to Transfer Case. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D. LAND on 6/3/2024 (tlf).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
TWANNER E. WILLIAMS,

*

Plaintiff,

*

vs.

*

KIA GEORGIA, INC.,

*

Defendant.

CASE NO. 4:24-cv-39 (CDL)

*
O R D E R

Twanner Williams, proceeding pro se, brought this action
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C.
§ 12101 et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et
seq.

Presently pending before the Court are Defendant’s (“Kia”)

motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) and motion to transfer (ECF No. 6)
this action.

For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s motions are

denied.
BACKGROUND
Williams, who resides in the Columbus Division of the Middle
District of Georgia, was previously employed at a Kia manufacturing
facility located in West Point, Troup County, Georgia.
Decl. ¶¶ 4, 5, ECF No. 5-1.

Norris

Although Troup County is located

within the Newnan Division of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia (the “Newnan Division”), Troup
County is actually adjacent to Harris County, which is within the

Columbus Division, and West Point is approximately 40 miles from
Columbus and 45 miles from Newnan. 1 Williams’s allegations concern
events at this manufacturing facility and Kia asserts that all
records relevant to this action are located in West Point.
Decl. ¶ 6.

Norris

Kia also claims that most anticipated witnesses for

this action, such as Kia management, reside in West Point.

For

these reasons, Kia moved the Court to transfer this action to the
Newnan Division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

Williams opposes

this transfer because she resides in Columbus with her husband,
whom she must take to medically necessary dialysis treatments in
Columbus three times a week.

Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss

& Mot. to Transfer ¶ 2, ECF No. 8.
Kia also moves to dismiss this action arguing that Williams
has

not

adequately

discrimination.

alleged

a

federal

claim

for

disability

In the alternative, Kia requests that Williams be

ordered to provide a more definite statement of her claim.

The

Court first addresses the venue motion, then the motion to dismiss,
or in the alternative, motion for a more definite statement.
MOTION TO TRANSFER
Kia does not appear to dispute that venue could be proper in
the Middle District of Georgia. However, it argues that the Newnan
Division of the Northern District of Georgia would be a more

The Court takes judicial notice of these facts based on personal
experience acknowledging that the mileage may not be exact.

1

2

convenient

venue.

Section

1404(a)

provides

that

“[f]or

the

convenience of 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.”
§ 1404(a).

28 U.S.C.

To assess Kia’s § 1404(a) transfer request, the Court

must determine (1) if this action “might have been brought” in the
Newnan Division, and (2) if the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and the interest of justice favor transfer to the Newnan
Division.
I.

Id.

Where This Action “Might Have Been Brought”
This action might have been brought in the Newnan Division.

Id.

An action might have been brought in a suggested forum if the

court situated in that forum has subject matter jurisdiction over
the action, has personal jurisdiction over the defendants to the
action, and provides a proper venue.

Escobedo v. Wal-Mart Stores,

Inc., No. 3:08-cv-105 (CDL), 2008 WL 5263709, at *2 (M.D. Ga. Dec.
17, 2008) (citing Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 344 (1960)).
Here, the Newnan Division has subject matter jurisdiction
over Williams’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims because they
“aris[e] under the . . . laws . . . of the United States.”
U.S.C. § 1331.

28

The Newnan Division also has personal jurisdiction

over Kia because Kia operates a manufacturing facility within that
division and therefore has significant contacts with the proposed
forum.

Finally, the Newnan Division is an appropriate venue for
3

this action because the events giving rise to Williams’s claims
occurred in the Troup County facility and a civil action may be
brought in “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the
events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.”
§ 1391(b)(2).

28 U.S.C.

Therefore, this action might have been brought in

the Newnan Division.
II.

Convenience of the Parties and Witnesses and the Interest of
Justice
The Court is unconvinced, however, that the convenience of

the

parties

and

witnesses

transfer of venue.

and

interest

of

justice

support

a

The Eleventh Circuit has identified nine

factors relevant to this inquiry:
(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).

Preliminarily, the Court observes that “[t]he plaintiff’s

choice of forum should not be disturbed unless it is clearly
outweighed by other considerations.” Robinson v. Giarmarco & Bill,
P.C., 74 F.3d 253, 260 (11th Cir. 1996) (quoting Howell v. Tanner,
650 F.2d 610, 616 (5th Cir. Unit B July 1981)).
carried this burden.
4

Kia has not

Both

the

Newnan

Division

and

this

Court

may

compel

the

attendance of any unwilling witnesses and will be equally familiar
with the law governing Williams’s claims.

Thus, these factors are

neutral.
The Court is also unconvinced that the witnesses and documents
are much closer to Newnan than they are Columbus.

The Kia plant

is in West Point which is located in Troup County.

While Troup

County is in the Newnan Division, West Point is approximately 45
miles from the Newnan Division courthouse which is in Coweta
County.

Troup County is adjacent to Harris County which is in the

Columbus Division of the Middle District, and West Point is not
much farther from the Columbus Division courthouse than it is the
Newnan Division courthouse.

Thus, the first, second, and fourth

factors do not weigh definitively in favor of transfer.
The
challenges

Court

also

related

finds

to

her

that

Williams’s

husband’s

health-related

dialysis

produce

an

inconvenience to her if she were required to travel to Newnan which
outweighs any slight inconvenience for Kia and its witnesses if
they have to litigate this action in the Columbus Division.

Kia

has simply failed to demonstrate that Williams’s choice of forum
should be disturbed.

Accordingly, Kia’s motion to transfer this

action is denied.

5

MOTION TO DISMISS
Kia seeks to dismiss Williams’s Complaint arguing that it
fails to adequately plead facts in compliance with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 8.
as

the

Williams

Complaint
is

disability.

a

The Court disagrees.
with

attached

disabled

Army

The documents docketed

exhibits

veteran

clearly

with

a

allege

that

service-related

She further alleges that Kia was aware of this

disability and terminated her employment because of it.

She also

alleges that she provided her disability discrimination complaint
to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and received a Right
to Sue Letter.

In addition to the factual allegations in her

Complaint, she attached documents in support of those allegations
which she incorporates as part of her Complaint. 2
Although a lawyer may have drafted the complaint in a more
polished

manner,

the

Court

finds

that

Williams’s

Complaint,

prepared pro se, clearly places Kia on notice of the nature of her
claim and sufficiently alleges facts supporting it.
the motion to dismiss is denied.

Accordingly,

Moreover, the Court finds that

little would be accomplished, except delay, by requiring Williams
to further plead her claims.

Kia can explore those factual

It is unclear to the Court whether Kia’s counsel contends that Kia was
never served with these documents. If that is the case, and counsel
wishes to persist in some type of insufficient service defense, then
counsel should file a separate motion. But if Kia has received these
documents, it seems that such a defense would ultimately prove to be
futile and create additional unnecessary delay and expense.

2

6

allegations during discovery.

Accordingly, the Court does not

order that Williams provide a more definite statement of her claim.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Kia’s motion to transfer (ECF No.
6) and motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) this action are denied.
Clerk shall issue a Rules 16/26 Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 3rd day of June, 2024.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

7

The