McRae v. Lester et al

Filing 8

ORDER denying 6 Motion to Change Venue. Signed by Judge Dudley H. Bowen on 05/04/2018. (jlh)

..o

r.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FtR^THfe-^-

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEOI^|:j^^y
DUBLIN DIVISION

nu o. i r
"

OLERKmUMlLx

MARGIE McRAE,

SO. OiST. Of GA.

Plaintiff,
CV 318-025

V.

ALICE RENEE WOOTEN LESTER,

*

Individually and as xHeir of
and as Personal Representative

*
*

of the Estate of Jerome Wooten; *

GERALDINK WOOTEN CRAY; NINA
*
WOOTEN BRANTLEY; GLENDA WOOTEN; *
ALLEN CURTIS WOOTEN; BERNARD
WOOTEN; and MARCUS WOOTEN,

Individually and as Heirs at
Law of Jerome Wooten,
Defendants,

ORDER

This case arises from the Superior Court of Telfair

County, Georgia's order vacating a default judgment that was
awarded to Plaintiff by the Magistrate Court of Telfair
County.

{Compl,, Doc. No. 1, Hi.) Plaintiff asks the Court

to vacate the Superior Court of Telfair County's order due to
its alleged racial bias.

Plaintiff now moves the Court to

transfer this action to the Augusta Division of the Southern

District of Georgia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404.
6.)

(Doc. No.

For the following reasons. Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.

Under

28

U.S.C.

§

1404(b),

the

district

court

has

discretion to transfer venue to another division in the same

district.

The movant bears the burden of establishing that

the proposed forum is more convenient. In re Ricoh Corp., 870
F.2d 570, 573 (11th Cir. 1989).

In a motion to change venue

to another district, the Eleventh Circuit has instructed
courts to consider:

(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.

Given that Plaintiff's claim surrounds the Superior Court of

Telfair County, factors two, four, and nine weigh against
transfer.

Additionally, Plaintiff does not identify the

address of any of the defendants in this case.

Plaintiff argues that transferring venue is appropriate
"since the records are in Augusta."

(Doc. No. 6, at 2.)

Plaintiff, however, fails to identify the documents she is

referring to. Plaintiff also fails to identify the addresses
of the Plaintiff's Complaint surrounds the actions of the

Superior Court of Telfair County, which is within the Dublin
division.

Accordingly, the locus of the operative facts

favors Dublin.

Furthermore, Plaintiff has not identified the

address of the defendants in this case.

However, given that

Plaintiff's Complaint surrounds the Superior Court of Telfair
County.

Furthermore, in regards to the eighth factor;

Plaintiff chose to file in Dublin.

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this

day of

May, 2018.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUD