Iraheta v. Equifax Information Services LLC et al

Filing 65

ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion for Change of Venue to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana; or in the Alternative, Dismissal Without Prejudice to Refile in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana [58 ] is GRANTED. This case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport Division, for all further proceedings. The Clerk is directed to immediately transfer this case to the United States District Court, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport Division. Signed by Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell on 10/23/2017. (JJH) [Transferred from Florida Middle on 10/24/2017.]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
JOSE D. IRAHETA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 8:17-cv-1303-T-36AAS

EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES
LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon the Plaintiff's Motion for Change of Venue to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana; or in the Alternative, Dismissal Without
Prejudice to Refile in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (the “Motion”)
(Doc. 58), filed on October 2, 2017. Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. filed a
response (Doc. 59), to which Plaintiff replied with his First Supplement to the Motion (Doc. 60).
Plaintiff asserts that he is a military service member on active duty and subject to the
control of military command and authority. Doc. 58 at 1. He received orders to relocate to the State
of Louisiana. Id. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. does not oppose the transfer, but merely
requests a specific date for the relocation to determine whether the Motion is premature. Doc. 59
at 2. In his reply, Plaintiff clarifies that he received a relocation date of November 17, 2017, and
he expects to take permanent residency in the State of Louisiana as of November 21, 2017. Doc.
60 at 1.
A district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might
have been brought “[f]or the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.”
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). A court must consider two factors to determine whether transferring venue

is appropriate: 1) whether the action might have been brought in the venue to which transfer is
sought; and 2) whether various factors are satisfied so as to determine if transfer to a more
convenient forum is justified. Thermal Techs., Inc. v. Dade Serv. Corp., 282 F. Supp. 2d 1373,
1376 (S.D. Fla. 2003). Under Section 1404(a), a district court has the discretion to grant or deny
a motion to transfer. See In re Ricoh Corp., 870 F.2d 570, 573 n. 5 (11th Cir. 1989). Such motions
are analyzed according to an “individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and
fairness.” Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (quotation marks and
citation omitted).
Factors the court considers in determining the propriety of transfer include:
(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.
Manuel v. Convergys Corp., 430 F.3d 1132, 1135 n. 1 (11th Cir. 2005). The burden is on the
movant to establish that the suggested forum is more convenient. See Ricoh, 870 F.2d at 573.
Further, the Court must give considerable weight to the plaintiff’s choice of forum, and will not
disturb it unless it is “clearly outweighed” by considerations of convenience, cost, judicial
economy and expeditious discovery and trial process. See Robinson v. Giarmarco & Bill, P.C.,
74 F.3d 253, 260 (11th Cir. 1996).
The Court is persuaded that this case should be transferred to the Western District of
Louisiana for the convenience of the parties. The Defendants do not oppose the transfer. Plaintiff
may have initially filed the case in the Western District of Louisiana because the Defendants do

2

business in Louisiana. 1 See Doc. 58. The Western District of Louisiana’s Local Rules direct that
the case be assigned the appropriate division, which based on Plaintiff’s representation is in the
Shreveport Division. 2 See W.D. La. LR77.3
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff's Motion for Change of Venue to the U.S. District Court for the Western

District of Louisiana; or in the Alternative, Dismissal Without Prejudice to Refile in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (Doc. 58) is GRANTED.
2.

This case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court, Western District

of Louisiana, Shreveport Division, for all further proceedings.
3.

The Clerk is directed to immediately transfer this case to the United States District

Court, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport Division.
DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on October 23, 2017.

Copies to:
Counsel of Record and Unrepresented Parties, if any

1

Although the title of the Motion indicates a request to transfer to the Western District, the body
of the Motion repeatedly references the “Middle District of Louisiana.” The Court will deem
those references a clerical error, given that in his Supplemental Motion Plaintiff reverts to
referencing the Western District of Louisiana.
2
Plaintiff did not list the city in Louisiana to which he will relocate. Nor did he request a specific
division for transfer. But Plaintiff references the Defendants being subject to jurisdiction in the
district court in Shreveport, Louisiana. Doc. 58 at 2. Accordingly, the Court will presume
Shreveport is the appropriate district.
3