James v. Community Eldercare Services, LLC
ORDER granting 43 Motion to Change Venue; transferring cause to the Southern District of Mississippi. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 9/13/17. (jla)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-38-SA-DAS
CLC OF PASCAGOULA, LLC
d/b/a PLAZA COMMUNITY LIVING CENTER
The Plaintiff filed her Complaint  on March 4, 2016 against Community Eldercare
Services, LLC. According to the venue allegations in her complaint, Community Eldercare’s
principal place of business is Lee County, Mississippi, within the Northern District of Mississippi.
The Plaintiff is a resident of Jackson County, Mississippi, within the Southern District of
Mississippi. The facility where the Plaintiff worked, and where the activities giving rise to this
litigation took place, is in Pascagoula, Mississippi, also within the Southern District.
In September of 2016, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint  substituting CLC of
Pascagoula, LLC for Community Eldercare Services, LLC as the Defendant. Again, according to
the venue allegations in the Amended Complaint, CLC had its principal place of business in Lee
After the Court denied summary judgment, see [41, 42], the Plaintiff filed a Second
Amended Complaint , and a Motion to Transfer Venue , correcting her venue allegations to
reflect the fact that CLC’s principal place of business is Jackson County, Mississippi and not, as
previously alleged, Lee County, Mississippi. CLC never objected or raised the error in the
Plaintiff’s venue allegations in its Answer  or otherwise.
The parties, together, now request that this Court transfer this case to the Southern District,
see [43, 44], because all of the parties reside in the Southern District, and the great majority of the
witnesses reside in and around Jackson County, Mississippi. The Court notes that Jackson County
and the City of Pascagoula are more than 250 miles from the Northern District Courthouse in
28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a) states “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.”
Several public and private interest factors are relevant to determining
whether to grant a motion to change venue including: (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”; (4) “all other practical problems that make trial of a
case easy, expeditious and inexpensive”; (5) “the administrative
difficulties flowing from court congestion”; (6) “the local interest in
having localized interest decided at home”; (7) “the familiarity of the
forum with the law that will govern the case”; and (8) “the avoidance of
unnecessary problems of conflict of laws [or in] the application of foreign
In re Archer Directional Drilling Servs., L.L.C., 630 F. App’x 327, 328 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting In
re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc)).
Because this case could have been brought in the Southern District, the parties have
consented, and because a trial proceeding in the Southern District will be much more convenient for
the parties and the witnesses, the Court finds that this case should be transferred to the Southern
District of Mississippi. The Court also notes that virtually all of the Volkswagen factors militate in
favor of transfer as well.
For all of these reasons, the parties’ request to transfer this case to the Southern District of
Mississippi [43, 44] is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to TRANSFER this case to the
Southern District of Mississippi for all further proceedings.
SO ORDERED, this 13th day of September, 2017.
/s/ Sharion Aycock
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?