Creighton v. MetLife Securities, Inc. et al

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by the Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan on 8/27/2015.MAILED notice (ks, ) [Transferred from Illinois Northern on 8/27/2015.]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
MARCUS CREIGHTON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
METLIFE, INC. et al.
Defendants.

No. 15 C 4121

MEMORANDUM OPINION
SAMUEL DER-YEGHIAYAN, District Judge
This matter is before the court on Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company’s (MLIC) motion to transfer. For the reasons stated below, the motion to
transfer is granted in part.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Marcus Creighton (Creighton) alleges that he is African American
and that he worked for MLIC beginning in 2001. Creighton contends that he was the
only African American employee in his region. According to Creighton, MLIC
discriminated against him because of his race by allegedly denying him valuable
client leads, denying him referrals, denying him account transfers, denying him
certain distributions, refusing to allow him to pool resources, and denying him

1

opportunities to join management. Creighton includes in his complaint claims
brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Section 1981) alleging race discrimination (Count
I), and Section 1981 retaliation claims (Count II). MLIC now moves to transfer the
instant action to the Eastern District of Missouri.

LEGAL STANDARD
A district court may transfer an action to another district where the action
might have been brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (Section 1404(a)) “[f]or
the convenience of parties and witnesses,” and if it is “in the interest of justice . . . .”
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In order to transfer a case, the transferor court must first find
that: (1) venue is proper in the transferor district, see Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works,
796 F.2d 217, 219 (7th Cir. 1986)(stating that a court “in which a suit is filed with
proper venue” may transfer an action pursuant to § 1404(a)), and (2) venue is proper
in the transferee district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)(stating that transfer can only be
made to a district in which the action “might have been brought”).

DISCUSSION
MLIC moves to transfer the instant action to the Eastern District of Missouri.

I. Creighton’s Choice of Forum
Creighton argues that his choice of forum is entitled to deference. In
considering whether to transfer an action, the court should “give some weight to the
2

plaintiff’s choice of forum.” Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Citizens Bank & Trust
Co. of Park Ridge, Ill., 592 F.2d 364, 368 (7th Cir. 1979); see also In re National
Presto Industries, Inc., 347 F.3d 662, 664 (7th Cir. 2003)(stating that “‘unless the
balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff’s choice of forum should
rarely be disturbed’”)(quoting in part Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508
(1947)). Creighton argues that the court should consider his desire to proceed in the
Northern District of Illinois. Creighton’s choice of forum is merely one factor to
consider and is not a controlling factor. In response to the instant motion, Creighton
also indicates that if the court concludes that a transfer is appropriate, suitable
districts would be either the Southern District of Illinois or the Southern District of
New York. Thus, although Creighton has indicated his first choice would be the
instant district, he has other districts that he would prefer as well. A transfer to either
one of those other districts that are proposed by Creighton would, at least in part,
accommodate Creighton’s choice of forum. The fact that Creighton also indicates
that he intends to bring a nationwide class action in this case further lessens the
deference that should be accorded to his choice of forum.

II. Convenience of Parties and Witnesses
MLIC argues that the convenience of the parties and witnesses would be best
served by a transfer of the instant action to the Eastern District of Missouri. MLIC
argues that many of the key witnesses are located in Missouri such as Creighton’s
supervisors. The record also indicates that Creighton worked in Missouri and had his
3

clients there, which indicates that further evidence and witnesses might be more
readily available in Missouri.
Creighton points out that several other key witnesses that were identified by
MLIC are not located in Missouri. However, such witnesses are located in North
Carolina, Connecticut and California and will be required to travel a significant
distance whether this case proceeds in Illinois or Missouri. Creighton also argues
that his counsel is based in Chicago and is not licensed to practice law in Missouri,
which will cause Creighton significant cost and will cause him a hardship. While the
Eastern District of Missouri might not clearly be a more convenient forum when
taking into consideration the inconvenience to Creighton, Creighton indicates that the
Southern District of Illinois would be an acceptable alternative to the instant district.
Creighton indicates that he worked in the Southern District of Illinois. Thus, certain
witnesses and evidence my be present in the Southern District of Illinois. The
Southern District of Illinois, East St. Louis Division is also in close proximity to the
Eastern District of Missouri, and specifically St. Louis where material events
occurred, thus limiting any inconvenience to witnesses in Missouri. Thus, the
Southern District of Illinois is clearly a more convenient forum than the instant
district or the Eastern District of Missouri.

III. Interest of Justice
MLIC contends that the interest of justice would be promoted by a transfer to
the Eastern District of Missouri. In addressing the interest of justice factor, a court
4

may consider: (1) whether a transfer promotes the “efficient administration of the
court system,” (2) whether the action could be consolidated with other actions in the
transferee district, (3) whether the judges in the transferee district are more familiar
with the pertinent state law, (4) whether jurors in a particular district have a
“financial interest in [the] case,” and (5) which district would have jurors that could
“best apply community standards.” Coffey, 796 F.2d at 220-21, 221 n.4. The court
should also consider whether the transferee district has a lighter docket than the
transferor district. In re National Presto Indus., Inc., 347 F.3d at 664. In addressing
the interest of justice factor, the transferor court should focus on whether the
proposed transfer would promote the “efficient functioning of the courts.” Coffey,
796 F.2d at 221. The interest of justice factor does not involve a consideration of the
merits of the plaintiff’s claim. Id.
Although Creighton worked in Missouri, the record indicates that he also
worked in Illinois. Any local interests involved in this case are also limited due to
the fact that Creighton intends to pursue a nationwide class action. Based on the
location of the evidence and witnesses, and other facts relating to the convenience
factor, the efficient administration of this case can best occur in the Southern District
of Illinois. Based on the above, the Southern District of Illinois is clearly a more
convenient forum than the instant district or the Eastern District of Missouri.
Therefore, the motion to transfer is granted in part, and the instant action is
transferred to the Southern District of Illinois, East St. Louis Division.

5

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing analysis, MLIC’s motion to transfer is granted in part
and the instant action is transferred to the Southern District of Illinois, East St. Louis
Division.

___________________________________
Samuel Der-Yeghiayan
United States District Court Judge
Dated: August 27, 2015

6