Arrington v. City of Fort Wayne

Filing 43

OPINION AND ORDER: DENYING 37 MOTION for Change of Venue by Plaintiff Eddie J Arrington. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins on 12/2/2016. (lhc)(cc: Plaintiff)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION

EDDIE J. ARRINGTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF FORT WAYNE, Mayor Henry,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:16-cv-00148-RL-SLC

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is a motion for change of venue filed by pro se Plaintiff Eddie J.
Arrington on November 1, 2016. (DE 37). For the following reasons, Arrington’s motion will
be DENIED.
As background, Arrington filed this case in Allen Superior Court on March 10, 2016,
advancing certain constitutional claims and a state law theft claim against Defendants the City of
Fort Wayne; John Caywood, a neighborhood code officer; Kelly Towing; and Lunz Excavation.
(DE 4). Defendants removed the case here. (DE 3). The Court held a preliminary pretrial
conference on June 14, 2016, setting a discovery deadline of December 31, 2016. (DE 18).
Arrington filed the instant motion to change venue on November 1, 2016, with the close
of discovery fast approaching. In the motion, Arrington cursorily asserts that the Court should
transfer this case to “a venue other than Allen County” because “justice would be better served
in a venue other than Allen County” in that “[y]ou don’t bite the hand that feeds you.” (DE 37).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), “[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 or to any district or division to which all parties have
consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). “The statute permits a ‘flexible and individualized analysis’
and affords district courts the opportunity to look beyond a narrow or rigid set of considerations
in their determinations.” Research Automation, Inc. v. Schrader-Bridgeport Int’l, Inc., 626 F.3d
973, 978 (7th Cir. 2010) (quoting Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988)).
The party moving for the transfer bears “the burden of establishing, by reference to particular
circumstances, that the transferee forum is clearly more convenient.” Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron
Works, 796 F.2d 217, 219-20 (7th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted).
Here, Arrington argues that the case should be transferred based on the interest of justice.
The interest of justice, however, concerns factors such as “trying related litigation together,
ensuring a speedy trial, and having the trial before a judge who is familiar with the applicable
law,” Jaramillo v. DineEquity, Inc., 664 F. Supp. 2d 908, 915 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (citing Heller
Fin., Inc. v. Midwhey Powder Co., 883 F.2d 1286, 1293 (7th Cir. 1989); Amoco Oil Co. v. Mobil
Oil Corp., 90 F. Supp. 2d 958, 960 (N.D. Ill. 2000)), none of which Arrington addresses in his
motion. Nor did Arrington even propose a transferee court; as such, the Court cannot evaluate
whether venue would be proper in the transferee forum. In any event, it is difficult to
hypothesize how any other forum could conceivably be more convenient when (1) the incident
giving rise to the action occurred in Fort Wayne; (2) all of the parties are located in Fort Wayne;
and (3) it is likely that any witnesses would also reside in Fort Wayne. (See DE 4).
For these reasons, Arrington fails to carry his burden of establishing that a transferee

2

forum is more convenient. Therefore, Arrington’s motion for a change of venue (DE 37) is
DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Entered this 2nd day of December 2016.
/s/ Susan Collins
Susan Collins,
United States Magistrate Judge

3