Bruce et al v. The Board of Supervisors of the Louisiana Community and Technical Colleges et al
Filing
31
RULING : GRANTING this case shall be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana 23 MOTION to Transfer Case to Eastern District of Louisiana filed by Monty Sullivan, The Board of Supervisors of the Louisiana Community and Technical Colleges. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 11/19/2018. (ELW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LEE EM BRUCE, RONNEKA SMITH
AND WILLIE BROWN
CIVIL ACTION NO.
VERSUS
3:18-cv-00012-SDD-EWD
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
LOUISIANA COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL
COLLEGES AND DR. MONTY SULLIVAN, IN
HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SYSTEM PRESIDENT
RULING
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Transfer Venue1 by Defendants,
The Board of Supervisors of the Louisiana Community and Technical Colleges (“LCTCS”)
and Dr. Monty Sullivan, in his official capacity as System President (“Sullivan”)(or
collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiffs Lee Em Bruce, Ronneka Smith, and Willie Brown
(“Plaintiffs”) have filed an Opposition2 to this motion. For the following reasons, the Court
finds that Defendants’ motion should be granted.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs are students who have previously been or are currently enrolled at
Delgado Community College (“Delgado”),3 an institution within the LCTCS, with four
campuses located in New Orleans, Louisiana and one campus located in Metairie,
Louisiana.4 Plaintiffs are deaf individuals who communicate primarily in American Sign
1
Rec.Doc. No. 23.
2
Rec. Doc. No. 27.
3
Rec. Doc. Nos. 1 & 22.
4
Rec. Doc. No. 23-2.
Document Number: 48933
Page 1 of 15
Language (“ASL”),5 and they allege generally that Defendants have repeatedly
discriminated against them by failing and/or refusing to provide auxiliary aids and services
necessary to ensure effective communication with Defendants’ employees, staff, faculty,
and professors in a manner equal to those services provided to hearing students.6 As a
result of this alleged discrimination, Plaintiffs contend they have been and continue to be
unable to meaningfully engage in the educational services provided by Delgado.
On October 25, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of Louisiana
against the same Defendants named herein which appears to be identical to the present
lawsuit.7 However, on October 30, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
without Prejudice, which the Eastern District granted.8 Plaintiffs subsequently filed the
instant litigation in the Middle District of Louisiana on January 5, 2018.9 Defendants now
move to transfer venue to the Eastern District of Louisiana.
II.
LAW & ANALYSIS
A.
Motion To Transfer Venue
“Section 1404(a) of Title 28 allows the Court in its discretion to transfer venue to
another district or division, ‘[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest
of justice,’ where the action might have been brought.”10
“‘When the movant
demonstrates that the transferee venue is clearly more convenient’ than the venue
5
Rec. Doc. No. 1, ¶ 1.
6
Id.
7
See Rec. Doc. No. 23-8, Civil Action No. 17-cv-11209-KDE-JCW.
8
Rec. Doc. No. 23-1 at 3 (citing Civil Action No. 17-cv-11209 (E.D. La.), Rec. Doc. No. 4).
9
Rec. Doc. No. 1.
10
Norman v. H & E Equipment Services, Inc., 2015 WL 1281989, at *5 (M.D.La. Mar. 20, 2015)(quoting 28
U.S.C. § 1404(a); Hollis v.. Fla. State Univ., 259 F.3d 1295, 1300 (11th Cir.2001)).
Document Number: 48933
Page 2 of 15
chosen by the plaintiff, ‘it has shown good cause and the district court should grant the
transfer.’”11
“In determining whether to transfer a case, the court must consider both private
interest factors and public interest factors after first considering whether the judicial district
to which transfer is sought would have been a district in which the claim could have been
filed.”12 “These factors are ‘not necessarily exhaustive or exclusive’ and ‘none can be
said to be of dispositive weight.’”13
The private interest factors that a court must consider are: “(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.”14 The
public factors to be considered are: “(1) the administrative difficulties flowing from court
congestion; (2) the local interest in having localized interests decided at home; (3) the
familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case; and (4) the avoidance of
unnecessary problems of conflict of laws [or in] the application of foreign law.”15 “The
Fifth Circuit has explained that a plaintiff's choice of venue is not determinative in the
analysis, but the plaintiff's choice of venue should be respected if the transferee venue is
11
Coleman v. Trican Well Service, L.P., 2015 WL 865153, at *1 (W.D.Tex. Feb. 27, 2015)(quoting In re
Volkswagen of Am., Inc. (Volkswagen II), 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir.2008)).
12
Saurage v. Rave Reviews Cinemas, LLC, 2008 WL 205342, at *2 (M.D.La. Jan. 23, 2008)(citing In re
Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 203 (5th Cir.2004)).
13
Vivint Louisiana, LLC v. City of Shreveport, 2015 WL 1456216, at *3 (M.D.La. Mar. 23, 2015)(quoting In
re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir.2008)(citing Action Indus., Inc., v. U.S. Fid. & Guar.
Corp., 358 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir.2004)).
14
In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d at 315.
15
Id.
Document Number: 48933
Page 3 of 15
not clearly more convenient.”16
B. Arguments of Parties
Defendants do not argue that the Middle District is an improper venue for this suit
considering that Delgado is supervised under the LCTCS, and the LCTCS is domiciled in
East Baton Rouge Parish within the Middle District. However, Defendants maintain the
Eastern District is also a proper venue because Delgado has several campuses in New
Orleans and Metairie, and all campuses are located within the Eastern District.
Defendants maintain that the private interest factors in this case weigh in favor of
transfer. Defendants contend the Eastern District is the more convenient court because
a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims asserted in this
matter occurred on Delgado’s campuses. Defendants note that Plaintiffs’ Complaint filed
in the Eastern District contained allegations that venue was proper in the Eastern District
“because a substantial part of the events that give rise to the claims occurred in this
District.”17
Further, regarding the instant suit, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint alleges no personal conduct by any member of the LCTCS, nor do
they allege that any interaction with Delgado staff occurred in the Middle District. Notably,
in both the Eastern District Complaint and the original Complaint filed in this Court,
Plaintiffs Bruce and Smith alleged that they reside in the New Orleans area.18 However,
in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, all allegations regarding Plaintiffs’ residences have
been removed.19 Thus, because no Plaintiff indicates that he/she lives in the Middle
16
CSFB 1998–C2 TX Facilities, LLC v. Rector, 2015 WL 1003045, at *6 (Mar. 5, 2015)(citing Volkswagen
II, 545 F.3d at 314–15 (5th Cir.2008)(en banc)).
17
Rec. Doc. No. 23-1 at 6 (quoting Rec. Doc. No. 23-8, ¶ 10).
18
See Rec. Doc. Nos. 1 & 23-8.
19
Rec. Doc. No. 22.
Document Number: 48933
Page 4 of 15
District, Defendants contend Plaintiffs’ choice of forum should be afforded little deference
in this case.
Defendants also challenge Plaintiffs’ allegation in their First Amended Complaint
that “[v]enue is proper in this district … because a substantial part of the events that give
rise to the claims occurred in this district.”20 Defendants submit that Plaintiffs’ allegations
directly contradict this contention as both Bruce and Smith claim they took classes in
person at Delgado, and Smith indicates that she was enrolled at Delgado’s City Park
Campus in New Orleans. Bruce and Smith further allege that they personally interacted
with Gretchen Peoples and other staff members at Delgado’s financial aid office, and,
although Brown claims he participated in Delgado’s online courses, he alleges he
contacted Delgado’s Office of Disability Services.21 Defendants claim no presence in the
Middle District as Delgado’s physical classrooms,22 Office of Financial Aid,23 and Office
of Disability Services24 are all located in the New Orleans area. Additionally, Defendants
contend
the
student
records
and
documentary
evidence
of
resources
and
accommodations provided to students attending Delgado are kept and maintained in New
Orleans within the Office of Disability Services.25
Defendants also maintain that transferring venue to the Eastern District would
mitigate against witness costs as Delgado’s campuses are substantially closer to the
Eastern District rather than the Middle District, and the key witnesses to this litigation work
20
Id. at ¶ 11.
21
Id. at ¶ 37.
22
Rec. Doc. No. 23-2.
23
Rec. Doc. No. 23-6.
24
Rec. Doc. No. 23-5.
25
Rec. Doc. No. 23-4.
Document Number: 48933
Page 5 of 15
and reside in the Eastern District, i.e., Gretchen Peoples, Delgado’s disability services
coordinator;26 Joseph Williams, who is alleged to have personally interacted with Plaintiff
Smith;27 and Dr. Arnel Cosey, the Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs and Executive Dean
of Delgado’s City Park Campus.28 Further, although Defendants admit that not every
potential or possible witness has been identified at this stage of the litigation, Defendants
contend that it is reasonably likely that most witnesses with key knowledge as to the facts
surrounding this case will work and/or reside in the Eastern District. As such, Defendants
submit that trial of this matter would be more expeditious and less expensive if tried in the
Eastern District. In the event of a multi-day trial in the Middle District, greater meal and
lodging costs would almost certainly be necessary. Finally, the subpoena power is equal
as to both districts and is neutral.
As to the public interest factors, Defendants argue that these factors also weigh in
favor of transfer. Defendants note that, statistically, the Eastern District would likely
resolve this litigation in a shorter median time as compared to the Middle District.
Defendants offer evidence showing that the median time from filing to disposition in civil
cases is 6.8 months in the Eastern District contrasted by 11.4 months in the Middle
District, and an even shorter median time from filing to trial exists in the Eastern District
– 17.9 months – as compared to the Middle District – 36 months.29
Additionally, Defendants claim that the localized interests in having this case
26
Rec. Doc. No. 22, ¶¶ 22 & 32; Rec. Doc. Nos. 23-4 & 23-5.
27
Rec. Doc. Nos. 23-3 & 23-5.
28
Rec. Doc. No. 23-2.
29
Rec. Doc. No. 23-9, U.S. District Courts – Combined Civil and Criminal Federal Court Management
Statistics (December 31, 2017), available at
http://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/data_tables/fcms_na_distcomparison1231.2017.pdf
Document Number: 48933
Page 6 of 15
decided in the Eastern District weigh in favor of transfer as any decision will directly affect
Delgado particularly more than the LCTCS generally. Defendants argue that Delgado
creates and implements its own policies in accordance with the general rules of the
LCTCS, and if Plaintiffs prevail herein, the relief obtained will directly affect Delgado rather
than the LCTC system. As Delgado has no campuses within the Middle District, no relief
will be felt in the Middle District.
Finally, Defendants contend the Middle and Eastern Districts are equally equipped
to adjudicate the constitutional matter complained of, and there are no conflicts of law or
application of foreign law present.
Accordingly, Defendants maintain they have
demonstrated that transferring this case to the Eastern District is warranted and is in the
best interests of justice.
Plaintiffs oppose the Defendants’ motion, arguing that Section 1404(a) does not
grant a defendant the power to substitute its preference of venue over that of a plaintiff’s.
Plaintiffs cite the Supreme Court’s decision in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, wherein the Court
stated: “It is often said that the plaintiff may not, by choice of an inconvenient forum, vex,
harass or oppress the defendant by inflicting upon him expense or trouble not necessary
to his own right to pursue his remedy. But unless the balance is strongly in favor of the
defendant, the plaintiff’s choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.”30 Plaintiffs contend
there is nothing vexatious or harassing by suing Defendants in the district closest to
Defendants’ home office, where funding is allocated, centralized decisions are made, and
where Defendants’ counsel are located.31
30
330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947).
31
Rec. Doc. No. 27 at 3.
Document Number: 48933
Page 7 of 15
Plaintiffs argue Defendants have not met their burden of demonstrating that the
Eastern District is a more convenient forum that the Middle District. In weighing the
private and public interest factors, Plaintiffs offer several reasons why this case should
be tried in the Middle District rather than the Eastern District. Regarding sources of proof,
costs to witnesses, and other practical problems, Plaintiffs contend Defendants have
failed to carry their burden of demonstrating that these factors clearly favor transfer.
Plaintiffs submit that the issues raised in this case involve system-wide contracts
with disability service care providers and the allocation of funding to the various colleges
within the LCTCS system; thus, Plaintiffs maintain that any effort to resolve their claims
of systematic deficiencies, and Defendants’ failure to accommodate students with
disabilities, will likely involve evidence and witnesses located in Baton Rouge where the
offices of both the LCTCS and Dr. Sullivan are located. Plaintiffs acknowledge that
substantial evidence pertinent to the instant litigation may be located in the Eastern
District; however, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants and their lawyers are domiciled in the
Middle District, and several witnesses and potential evidence are likely to be located in
the Middle District.
Plaintiffs counter that Defendants’ claims that they will experience inconvenience,
prejudice, or financial hardship if this case is tried in the Middle District are speculative
and meritless as the Middle District is less than eighty (80) miles away from Delgado’s
main campus. Plaintiffs also note that Defendants admitted that none of their witnesses
are located outside of the 100-mile threshold for considering witness costs and
Document Number: 48933
Page 8 of 15
inconvenience as required by the Fifth Circuit.32
Thus, Plaintiffs argue Defendants’
preference in trying this case in the Eastern District does not constitute “clear proof” in
favor of transfer.33
As to the public interest factors, Plaintiffs note Defendants’ concession that
familiarity with the law and avoidance of conflicts of law are neutral. Plaintiffs claim that
Defendants’ arguments regarding administrative difficulties and localized interests are
speculative and fail to meet Defendants’ burden. Plaintiffs argue Defendants’ statistical
data “ignores significant changes that have occurred in both the Eastern and Middle
Districts in 2018,”34 making specific reference to the Honorable Eastern District Court
Judge Kurt Engelhardt’s ascension to the Fifth Circuit. Further, Plaintiffs cite this Court’s
previous finding in Utility Constructors, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. that the time
between filing suit and trial is not entitled to much weight because it is the most
speculative.35 Plaintiffs also claim that this Court has already “invested significant time
and resources in becoming familiar with the facts and law of this case.”36
Plaintiffs attempt to refute the localized interest arguments presented by
Defendants, arguing that Defendants ignore the systemic nature of the alleged
discrimination and the purported “Baton-Rouge-centric nature of Defendants’ own
affirmative defenses” such as sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, and fundamental
32
Id. Plaintiffs cite to In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008).
33
Id. at 5.
34
Id. at 6.
35
No. 15-cv-00501-JWD-RLB, 2016 WL 4033977 at *8 (M.D. La. July 25, 2016). The Court notes that this
case was decided before the Great Flood of 2016 and the death of the Honorable James Brady in 2017.
36
Rec. Doc. No. 27 at 6 (citing Rec. Doc. No. 21).
Document Number: 48933
Page 9 of 15
alteration/undue burden.37 Plaintiffs also argue that Baton Rouge taxpayers have at least
as much interest in the outcome of this litigation, if not more, than New Orleans taxpayers.
C.
Analysis
1.
Suit Could Have Been Filed in Eastern District of Louisiana
Pursuant to the Section 1404(a) framework, the Court must first determine whether
this lawsuit could have been brought in the Eastern District. Thus, the general venue
statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391, applies, which establishes venue in: (1) a judicial district in
which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the
district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or
omissions giving rise to the claim occurred ...; or (3) if there is no district in which an action
may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any
defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.38
As this case appears to have been previously filed in the Eastern District of
Louisiana, and no party disputes that this suit could have been filed in the Eastern District
of Louisiana, the Court finds that this action could have been brought in the Eastern
District of Louisiana where venue would be proper.
2.
Plaintiffs’ Choice of Forum
The Court rejects Plaintiffs’ argument that their choice of forum is entitled to
deference in this case. This Court has previously held: “[I]t is clear under Fifth Circuit
precedent that the plaintiff's choice of forum is clearly a factor to be considered but in and
37
Rec. Doc. No. 27 at 6.
38
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(West 2015).
Document Number: 48933
Page 10 of 15
of itself it is neither conclusive nor determinative.”39 This Court has also held that,
“[g]enerally, a plaintiff's choice of forum is given great deference; however, a plaintiff's
choice of forum is given less deference when the plaintiff is not a resident of his
choice of forum and when the operative facts of a case occurred in a different
forum.”40 Despite Plaintiffs’ removal of this allegation in their First Amended Complaint,
the record establishes that the Plaintiffs reside in the Eastern District as alleged in the
Eastern District Complaint and the original Complaint filed herein.
3.
Private and Public Interest Factors
After consideration of the facts in the record and the applicable law, the Court finds
that transfer of this case to the Eastern District furthers the convenience of the parties
and is in the interests of justice. The facts of this case demonstrate that Plaintiffs are/were
students at Delgado Community College for which all five campuses are located within
the Eastern District. The overwhelming majority of witnesses and evidence appears to
be located the Eastern District, particularly since it is clear that all alleged harm in this
matter was suffered by residents of the Eastern District allegedly committed mostly by
actors in the Eastern District. That fact that the LCTCS main office and Defendant
Sullivan are located in the Middle District is underwhelming when compared to the fact
39
Parker v. PNK (Lake Charles) LLC, No. , 2017 WL 5077704 at *2 (M.D. La. Oct. 12,2017)(quoting In re
Horseshoe Entm't, 337 F.3d 429, 434 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing Garner v. Wolfinbarger, 433 F.2d 117, 119 (5th
Cir. 1970)); see also Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Bell Marine Service, Inc., 321 F.2d 53, 56 (5th Cir. 1963)
(the avoidance of dismissal through 1404(a) lessens the weight to be given to the plaintiff's choice of
venue)).
40
Rivers v. Union Pac. R.R., No. 16-673, 2017 WL 379447, at *2 (M.D. La. Jan. 26, 2017)(emphasis added)
(citing Apparel Prod. Servs. Inc. v. Transportes De Carga Fema, 546 F. Supp. 2d 451, 453 (S.D. Tex.
2008)); see also In re Link_A_Media Devices Corp., 662 F.3d 1221, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (plaintiff's choice
of forum is entitled to less deference when it is not the plaintiff's home forum) (citing Sinochem Int'l Co. v.
Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430 (2007); Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 256
(1981)).
Document Number: 48933
Page 11 of 15
that the majority of parties and witnesses who reside and/or work in the Eastern District.
Plaintiffs offer no argument or evidence to controvert Defendants’ assertions that: (1) all
of Plaintiffs’ contacts with Defendants’ employees occurred in the Eastern District; (2) no
contact occurred with any Defendant in the Middle District; (3) the Office of Financial Aid
and Office of Disability Services are located in New Orleans; and (4) the student records
and documentary evidence associated with the majority of Plaintiffs’ claims is maintained
in the Office of Disability Services. There is no doubt in the Court’s view that it is more
convenient and cost-effective to have this case tried in the Eastern District.
Plaintiffs’ arguments regarding administrative difficulties and localized interests in
Baton Rouge are conclusory, incomplete, and suggest an inordinate interest on the part
of Baton Rouge taxpayers in the outcome of this litigation. Plaintiffs discount Defendants’
reliance on statistics as speculative and claim that Defendants’ data “ignores significant
changes that have occurred in both the Eastern and Middle Districts in 2018.”41 Plaintiffs,
however, reference only the recent transition of Eastern District Judge Kurt Engelhardt to
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals but fail to analyze the administrative difficulties flowing
from docket congestion in the Middle District.42 Considering this Court’s heavily
congested docket coupled with the fact that no operative facts relating to Plaintiffs’ claims
occurred in this district, the Court finds that this factor weighs heavily in favor of transfer.
41
Rec. Doc. No. 27 at 6.
In November 2017, the Middle District suffered the loss of Senior District Judge James Brady, who carried
active civil and criminal dockets at the time of his death. Recent statistics revealed that the Middle District
of Louisiana is the fourth busiest district in the country despite having only three active district judges, two
magistrate judges, and no senior judges. The docket of the Middle District has been further impacted in
the last year by the increase in civil case filings related to a catastrophic flood event in August of 2016. As
a result of these recent events, the three active judges of the Middle District assumed the criminal and civil
dockets of the late Honorable James Brady and contemporaneously gained an increase of approximately
900 flood related civil filings.
42
Document Number: 48933
Page 12 of 15
Plaintiffs’ claim that defense counsel are located in the Middle District is meritless
as a matter of law. This Court, following Fifth Circuit precedent, has held that the
inconvenience of the location of counsel is not a factor to be considered.43
Plaintiffs also overstate this Court’s investment in the current litigation. Plaintiffs
state that this Court has already “invested significant time and resources in becoming
familiar with the facts and law of this case;”44 however, the very document Plaintiffs cite
for this proposition also states: “This suit is still in its early stages. The Court has not yet
held a scheduling conference, nor has the Court issued a Scheduling Order.”45 This
argument is unpersuasive and does not weigh against transfer.
Finally, Plaintiffs maintain that Defendants’ affirmative defenses of sovereign
immunity, qualified immunity, and fundamental alteration/undue burden are “BatonRouge-centric,”46 and Defendants are likely to offer evidence concerning statewide tax
allocations, budgeting decisions, and comparison of services provided at various colleges
within the LCTCS system; thus, Plaintiffs contend:
These have all been hot-button topics in the Baton Rouge public
consciousness for some time. Baton Rouge taxpayers have at least as
much interest in hearing about (and remedying) systemic discrimination in
the LCTCS system as New Orleans area taxpayers. If anything, the
dispositive issues in this case may be of more local interest in the Middle
District than in the Eastern District.47
The Court is unpersuaded that Defendants’ affirmative defenses are “Baton-rougecentric” simply because they are asserted by Defendants located in Baton Rouge. The
43
Parker, 2017 WL 5077704 at *4 (citing In re Horseshoe Entm't, 337 F.3d at 434 (“The factor of ‘location
of counsel’ is irrelevant and improper for consideration in determining the question of transfer of venue.”)).
44
Rec. Doc. No. 27 at 6 (citing Rec. Doc. No. 21).
45
Rec. Doc. No. 21 at 6.
46
Id.
47
Id. at 7.
Document Number: 48933
Page 13 of 15
defenses of sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, and fundamental alteration/undue
burden are not novel or specialized within the Middle District, and they certainly do not
require resolution in the Middle District. Moreover, the suggestion that Middle District
taxpayers may be more interested in the outcome of this litigation than Eastern District
taxpayers is speculative, conclusory, and unsupported by evidence or jurisprudence.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ conduct and arguments are highly suggestive of
forum shopping. Plaintiffs originally filed this lawsuit in the Eastern District. Five days
later, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the suit filed in the Eastern District, and a little over
two months later, Plaintiffs filed a seemingly identical suit in the Middle District. Plaintiffs’
allegation in their Complaint48 and First Amended Complaint49 that “a substantial part of
the events that give rise to the claims occurred in this District,” is belied by nearly all of
Plaintiffs’ subsequent allegations. Now, to defeat Defendants’ motion, Plaintiffs offer
strained and unsupported arguments in an apparent attempt to overemphasize the
purported localized interests of Middle District taxpayers over Eastern District taxpayers.
The Court finds these arguments without merit, particularly considering that the outcome
of this litigation with respect to Delgado will have a direct impact on residents of the
Eastern District but may only result in an indirect impact on residents of the Middle
District.
The Eastern District held in The Laitram Corporation v. Hewlett-Packard Company
that “[a] fundamental principle guiding the Court's analysis is that litigation should proceed
in that place where the case finds its center of gravity.”50 The uncontroverted record in
48
Rec. Doc. No. 1, ¶ 10.
49
Rec. Doc. No. 22, ¶ 110.
50
120 F.Supp.2d 607, 609 (E.D. La. 2000)(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Document Number: 48933
Page 14 of 15
this case shows that the Eastern District of Louisiana is the “center of gravity” for the acts
giving rise to this lawsuit. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants have carried their
burden of demonstrating that the Eastern District is clearly a more convenient and proper
forum for this case.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue51 is
GRANTED, and this case shall be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 19th day of November, 2018.
S
____________________________________
SHELLY D. DICK
CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
51
Rec.Doc. No. 23.
Document Number: 48933
Page 15 of 15
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?