Faulstick v. Southern Tire Mart, LLC
Filing
15
ORDER & REASONS: granting 6 MOTION to Transfer Venue filed by Southern Tire Mart, LLC., Case transferred to the Southern District of Mississippi, Hattiesburg Division. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 4/4/13.(sek, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
FAULSTICK
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO: 12-2903
SOUTHERN TIRE MART, LLC.
SECTION: "J” (3)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before
the
("Southern
Court
Tire")'s
are
Defendant
Motion
to
Southern
Transfer
Venue
Tire
Mart,
LLC
Doc.
6),
(Rec.
Plaintiff Albert Faulstick's opposition to same (Rec. Doc. 8),
Defendant's
reply
thereto
(Rec.
Doc.
11),
and
Plaintiff's
surreply (Rec. Doc. 14). Defendant's motion was set for hearing
on March 13, 2013, on the briefs. The Court, having considered
the
motion
and
memoranda
of
counsel,
the
record,
and
the
applicable law, finds that Defendant's motion should be GRANTED
for the reasons set forth more fully below.
A district court may transfer an action to any other district
where the plaintiff could have originally filed suit “for the
convenience
of
the
parties
and
1
the
witnesses”
when
such
a
transfer is “in the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Such
transfers
are
left
to
“‘the
sound
discretion
of
the
transferring judge.’” Mills v. Beech Aircraft Corp., Inc., 886 F.
2d 758, 761 (5th Cir. 1989)(quoting Jarvis Christian College v.
Exxon Corp., 845 F.2d 523, 528 (5th Cir. 1988)). Although a
plaintiff's choice of forum is clearly important, that choice is
“neither conclusive nor determinative.” In re Horseshoe Entm't,
337
F.3d
429,
434–35
(5th
Cir.
2003).
In
making
such
a
determination, the transferring judge may consider the private
and public interest factors. In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545
F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008)(“Volkswagen II ”).
The private interest factors a court should consider include:
(1) “the relative ease of access to sources of proof;” (2) "the
availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of
witnesses;" (3) "the cost of attendance for willing witnesses;"
and (4) “all other practical problems that make trial of a case
easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d
201, 203 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454
U.S. 235, 241 (1981)). The relevant public interest factors are:
(1) the administrative difficulties created by court congestion;
(2) the interest in having localized controversies decided at
home; (3) the interest in having the trial of a diversity case in
2
a forum that is at home with the state law that must govern the
case; (4) the unfairness of burdening citizens in an unrelated
forum
with
jury
duty;
and
(5)
the
interest
in
avoiding
unnecessary problems in conflict of laws, or in the application
of foreign law. Id. The above-listed factors are not necessarily
exhaustive or exclusive, and none should be given dispositive
weight. Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 315 (citing Action Indus.,
Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Corp., 358 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir.
2004)).
The Court, in its discretion, finds that the above-captioned
matter should be transferred to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi, Hattiesburg Division.1
Plaintiff’s
complaint
indicates
that
this
suit
could
have
originally been brought in the Southern District of Mississippi.
In
particular,
Plaintiff
and
Defendant
are
both
citizens
of
Mississippi and the underlying events in this case all occurred
in
Mississippi
namely,
in
Marion
County.2
Likewise,
as
the
1
Because the Court's determination that this action should be transferred
to the Southern District of Mississippi, Hattiesburg Division under 28 U.S.C. §
1404(a) is dispositive, it does not address the question of whether or not venue
was proper in the Eastern District of Louisiana under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
2
This is an employment discrimination case. The underlying events in this
case refer to Defendant's alleged October 1, 2011 demotion of Plaintiff from copilot to back-up pilot, and its alleged December 31, 2011 termination of
Plaintiff. Compl., Rec. Doc. 1, pp. 2, 3, ¶¶ 8, 15. As alleged, these took place
by phone in Mississippi. Any changes to documents/personnel records were recorded
in Defendant's office located at 529 Industrial Park Road, Columbia, Marion
3
Complaint states and Defendant argues, the primary witnesses to
be
called
in
this
case
are
all
residents
of
Marion
County,
Mississippi.3 Furthermore, while the Court takes into account
Plaintiff's argument that it will be more convenient for him to
travel to New Orleans than to Hattiesburg, it also notes that the
difference in the travel distance is a mere 14.68 miles as the
crow flies. As Defendant has pointed out, Plaintiff routinely
traveled
to
Hattiesburg
while
employed;
therefore,
any
county, Mississippi 39429. See Def.'s Mot. to Transfer, Rec. Doc. 6, pp. 1–2, ¶
4. Likewise, Defendant's have asserted that the decision to terminate Plaintiff
was made in Marion County, Mississippi. Def.'s Mot. to Transfer, Rec. Doc. 6, p.
2, ¶ 5. Consequently, the Court notes that this not only indicates that the suit
could have been filed in the Southern District of Mississippi originally, but
moreover, it also supports Defendant's contention that all evidence relevant to
this suit is located in Mississippi, not Louisiana.
3
The primary fact witnesses in this case are all employees of Southern
Tire and work in Southern Tire's Marion County office. Def.'s Mot. to Transfer,
Rec. Doc. 6, p. 2, ¶ 5; Pl.'s Opp, Rec. Doc. 8, pp. 5-6 (discussing the residency
and employment location of the fact witnesses and failing to contest that they
reside in Marion County, Mississippi). Likewise, while the Court acknowledges
Plaintiff's argument that his proposed expert witness resides in this district,
there is at least some authority suggesting that the “witness convenience factor”
should only be applied to fact witnesses, and not to expert witnesses. See
Cormier v. Blue Marlin Support Servs., LLC, No. 11-3170, 2012 WL 3027099, at *3
n.7 (E.D. La. July 24, 2012); McDonough Marine Serv. v. Royal Ins. Co., No.
00–3134, 2001 WL 576190, at *5 (E.D.La. May 25, 2001); Trestman v. Microstrategy,
Inc., No. 01–0685, 2001 WL 1471707, at *6 (E.D.La. Nov. 15, 2001); Promuto v.
Waste Mgmt., Inc., 44 F.Supp.2d 628, 639–40 (S.D.N.Y.1999) (noting that “the
convenience of expert witnesses is entitled to little weight, if any”).
Furthermore, the number of fact witnesses residing in Marion County, Mississippi
(three to four) far outnumber the one proposed expert witness residing here. See
Wireless Recognition Techs. LLC v. A9.com, Inc., No. 10–364, 2012 WL 506669, at
*5 (E.D.Tex. Feb. 15, 2012) (convenience of witness factor weighed in favor of
transfer where “the number of witnesses residing in Texas, and any relevant
information which they may provide, pale[d] in comparison to the number of party
and non-party witnesses with relevant information residing in [the proposed
transferee district]”).
4
inconvenience
inconveniences
to
Plaintiff
that
the
is
minor
aforementioned
in
comparison
fact
to
witnesses
the
would
suffer. See Def.'s Reply, Rec. Doc. 11, p. 4. Based on these
facts, the Court finds that the above-referenced private and
public interest factors weigh in favor of transfer and, moreover,
the interest of justice so requires it. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's motion is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-captioned matter be
TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi, Hattiesburg Division.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 4th day of April, 2013.
____________________________
CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
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?