Abrams et al v. Stuckey
Filing
5
ORDER granting 4 Motion to Change Venue. The Clerk is directed to transfer this case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Following the transfer, the Clerk shall terminate all deadlines and motions, and close this case. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 10/21/2014. (thb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
LUCIOUS ABRAMS,
R.C.
JR.
and
*
ABRAMS,
*
*
Plaintiffs,
*
*
v.
'
*
CV 114-190
*
C. BRIAN STUCKEY,
District
Director, Farm Service Agency,
United States Department Of
Agriculture,
Defendant.
ORDER
Presently pending before
transfer
venue,
District
Court
with
for
Plaintiff's
the
reasons stated herein,
District
matter
Plaintiffs'
("TRO"),
comes
motion
Court
is
consent,
of
Defendant's
to
Columbia
the
(Doc.
motion to
United
4) .
States
For
the
the motion is GRANTED.
I.
This
the
for
BACKGROUND
before
entry
the
of
a
Court
on
temporary
removal,
following
restraining
order
which was granted in the Superior Court of Burke County,
Georgia.
(Doc.
1.)
There,
Plaintiffs
sought
a
TRO
to
prevent
foreclosure on a 350-acre tract of land due to nonpayment of loans
from
the
Farm
Agriculture
Service
("USDA") .
Agency
and
United
(Doc. 1, Ex. 1.)
States
Department
of
The motion for a TRO was
based upon a pending motion to vacate and set aside an arbitrator's
decision filed in the District Court for the District of Columbia,
which, if granted, would allegedly prevent foreclosure.
(Doc. 4.)
A brief background into the arbitrator's decision is helpful
to understand the underlying claims.
for
the
District
farmers
who
of
Columbia
alleged
that
In 1998,
certified a
the
USDA
class
the District Court
of African-American
discriminated
against
applications for farm loans and benefit programs.
(Doc.
court
them
claims
allowed
individual
claimants
to
decisions by a third-party neutral.
submitted
one
of
these
resolve
(Id.)
so-called
4.)
That
through
Lucious Abrams,
"Pigford
claims,"
in
Jr.1
which
was
dismissed by the arbitrator for failure to show a prima facie case
of discrimination.
(Id.)
filed
in
a
complaint
On October 14,
the
District
2008,
Court
Lucious Abrams,
for
the
District
Jr.
of
Columbia alleging the dismissal of his Pigford claim violated due
process,
which the court dismissed on August 24,
September 18,
and
Lucious
2014,
Lucious Abrams, Sr. and Sons,
Abrams,
Jr.
filed
a
complaint
2009.
(Id.)
On
the partnership,
to
set
aside
the
arbitrator's decision dismissing the Pigford claim.
On October 8,
2014,
a
the
court
October 24,
1
ordered
2014.
Plaintiffs
United States
to
file
response
by
(Id.)
inherited
Lucious Abrams, Sr.
three of his sons,
the
the
land
at
issue
from
their
father,
the
late
Mr. Abrams, through a
Jr., Herbert Abrams,
partnership with
and R.C. Abrams
operated a partnership known as Lucious Abrams, Sr. & Sons.
The partnership
received
of
business.
federal
("Mr. Abrams").
Lucious Abrams,
farm
Five of Mr.
loans
Abrams'
to
assist
in
the
operation
the
farm's
daughters brought an identical complaint in
the Superior Court of Burke County,
which was also removed to this Court.
See Zennie Houston, Betty Turner, Frances Ross, Jesse Mae Abrams, and Florine
Watson v. C. Brian Stuckey, No. l:14-cv-191, Doc. 1 (S.D. Ga. 2014).
2
II.
As
DISCUSSION
a preliminary matter,
the
Court
Southern District of Georgia is proper,
property
that
district.
28
is
the
U.S.C.
subject
of
the
§ 1391(b)(2).
notes
as
that venue
in the
a "substantial part of
action
is
Even so,
situated"
in
this
a district court may
transfer an action to any other district where the action may have
been brought or to any district to which all parties have consented
"[f]or
the
interest
of
convenience
of
justice[.]"
parties
and
witnesses
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
requires a two-part analysis:
[and]
This
must
determine
the
inquiry thus
(1) the Court must determine if this
action could have been brought in the alternate venue;
Court
in
whether
the
convenience
of
and (2)
parties
the
and
witnesses, as well as the interest of justice, require transfer.
Addressing the first
part,
this action could have
been brought in the District of Columbia.
LLC v. Sony Computer Entm't Am. LLC,
(S.D.
Fla.
transferee
2014)
("An
district
action
if
that
See Game Controller Tech
994 F. Supp.
might
initially
have
district
2d 1268,
been
has
1272-73
brought
subject
in
a
matter
jurisdiction over the action, venue is proper, and the parties are
amenable
to
service
of
process
in
the
transferee
forum.")
Personal and subject matter jurisdiction are both proper in the
District
of
transfer and
contract
Columbia,
(2)
governs
as
Plaintiffs
have
(1)
consented
to
the
sued an agency of the United States in which a
the
relationship.
28
Baragona v. Kuwait & Gulf Link Transp. Co.,
U.S.C.
§ 1346(a)(2);
594 F. Supp. 2d 1351,
1360
(N.D.
himself
Ga.
the
to
contract
2009)
jurisdiction
in
court.").
advance
("An
to
in
of
submit
Additionally,
headquartered
individual
to
venue
Washington,
a
is
may
court
the
by
See
because
28
subject
appearance
jurisdiction
proper
D.C.
voluntarily
or
of
a
the
U.S.C.
may
given
USDA
is
§ 1391(e)(1)
(venue is proper in any district where a defendant resides).
Finally, the Court finds that the United States District Court
for
the
District
transfer
is
in
of
Columbia
the
interest
is
of
a
more
convenient
justice.
Here,
forum
the
and
facts
that
and
circumstances that form the basis for the TRO presently are being
litigated
in
inextricably
Columbia,
516847,
District
tied
to
the
and this Court
unnecessary
money."
the
of
Columbia.
pending
action
at *1
(S.D.
Accordingly,
Pirelli Tire LLC,
Fla.
in
TRO
the
District
Feb.
22,
conserve
No.
time,
energy,
07-80453-CIV,
DIRECTED
to
and in light of Plaintiffs'
TRANSFER
thus
of
this
and
2008 WL
2008).
consent to transfer,
Defendant's motion to transfer venue is hereby GRANTED.
is
is
finds transfer proper in order "to avoid
inconvenience . . . and to
Gonzalez v.
The
case
Court for the District of Columbia.
to
the
United
States
Following transfer,
is shall terminate all deadlines and motions,
The Clerk
District
the Clerk
and CLOSE this case.
ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this_(Q^ '
day of October,
2014.
HONORABJlE-
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?