White v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. et al
Filing
93
MEMORANDUM OPINION re (50 in 2:09-cv-00162-GHD-JMV, 50 in 2:09-cv-00162-GHD-JMV) Order on Motion to Change Venue,. Signed by Glen H. Davidson on 9/7/12. Associated Cases: 2:09-cv-00161-GHD-JMV, 2:09-cv-00162-GHD-JMV (tab)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
DELTA DIVISION
SHIRLEY WHITE, As Wrongful Death
Beneficiary of KEITH PERKINS, DECEASED
PLAINTIFF
2:09-CV-00 161-GHD-JMV
v.
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.
DEFENDANT
CONSOLIDATED WITH
SHIRLEY WHITE, As Wrongful Death
Beneficiary of KEITH PERKINS, DECEASED
v.
PLAINTIFF
2:09-CV-00 162-GHD-JMV
CHRISTOPHER EPPS, Individually and in His Official Capacity;
and GLORIA M. PERRY, M.D., Individually and in Her Official Capacity
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION DENYING 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
Presently before the Court is Defendant's motion to transfer venue, brought pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1404(a) [82]. Upon due consideration, the Court is of the opinion that the motion is not
well taken.
Defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc. moves this Court to transfer this action from the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi ("Northern District") to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi ("Southern District").
Defendants Christopher Epps and Gloria M. Perry, M.D., both individually and in their official
capacities, join in the motion. Defendants argue that the case should be transferred to the Southern
District for the following reasons: (1) Keith Perkins, the Decedent, was, at the time of his death, an
inmate at Central Mississippi Correctional Facility ("CMCF") in Rankin County, Mississippi, which
is within the Southern District; (2) the alleged causes of action occurred in Rankin County, as the
complaint alleges that the Decedent did not receive proper medical care from the doctors and nurses
and other unidentified employees at CMCF in Rankin County, and that MDOC employees violated
the Decedent's constitutional rights; and (3) it would be more convenient for parties and witnesses to
try the case in the Southern District. Defendants acknowledge that venue was proper in the Northern
District when the action was initiated, but contend that venue ceased to be proper in the Northern
District once Defendant Tunica County, Mississippi was dismissed from this case on July 27,2012.
Venue is determined at the outset of litigation and is not affected by subsequent events.
Smilde v. Snow, 73 F. App'x 24, 26 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing Mich. Trust Co. v. Ferry, 228 U.S. 346,
353, 33 S. Ct. 550, 57 L. Ed. 867 (1913); Exxon Corp. v. FTC, 588 F.2d 895, 899 (3d Cir. 1978».
To determine whether venue was proper in the Northern District at the outset of this litigation, the
Court looks to the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), which provides:
A civil action may be brought in
(I) 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 a substantial part of
property that is the subject of the action is situated; 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.
The federal statute concerning improper venue provides: "The district court of a district in which is
filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of
justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought." 28 U.S.C.
§ 1406.
2
According to the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), the action was properly brought
in the Northern District if at the initiation of the suit all Defendants resided in Mississippi for venue
purposes, and at least one of the Defendants resided within the Northern District. See 28 U.S.C. §
1391(b)(1). As a corporation, Defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc. resides wherever it is subject
to personal jurisdiction, including Florida, where it was incorporated, and Rankin County, within the
Southern District, where this cause of action originated. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). Defendant Tunica
County, Mississippi, which has since been dismissed as a party to this action, resides in the Northern
District for venue purposes. Because at least one Defendant resided in the Northern District at the
outset of this litigation, venue was, and is, proper in the Northern District.
Having determined that venue is proper in the Northern District, the Court next examines
whether transfer to the Southern District would be proper based on the federal venue transfer statute,
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which provides: "For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest
ofjustice, 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); see also Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612,616,84 S. Ct. 805, 11 L. Ed. 2d 945 (1964);
In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 203 (5th Cir. 2004). A district court has "broad discretion in
deciding whether to order a transfer." Balawajder v. Scott, 160 F.3d 1066, 1067 (5th Cir. 1999).
The movant must show that "the transferee venue is ... clearly more convenient." In re Volkswagen
ofAm., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008) (en bane). See Time, Inc. v. Manning, 366 F.2d 690,
698 (5th Cir. 1966) (stating that the "plaintiffs privilege of choosing venue places the burden on the
defendant to demonstrate why the forum should be changed"). In deciding this issue, courts should
consider private and public interest factors. Ordinarily, the plaintiffs choice of venue will not be
disturbed unless the balance of factors weighs in favor of the defendant. The private interest factors
3
are as follows: "(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 at 203 (citing Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 241 n.6, 102 S.
Ct. 252, 70 L. Ed. 2d 419 (1981». The public interest factors are as follows: "(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 of the application of foreign law." Id. (citing
Piper Aircraft Co., 454 U.S. at 241 n.6, 102 S. Ct. 252).
Defendants contend that both private and public interest factors weigh in favor of a transfer
to the Southern District. Defendants argue that the proof would be more accessible in Hinds County
or Rankin County.
Defendants further maintain that a trial in Jackson would be easier, more
expeditious, and less expensive than a trial in Oxford, because Defendants' employees and expert
witnesses are located in the Jackson area and would incur less time and expense to attend a Jackson
trial. Defendants further argue that events giving rise to this litigation occurred in Rankin County or
Hinds County, and thus, that the matter should be heard in the Southern District.
Plaintiff argues in response that the Northern District was, and remains, a proper venue for
this action, as discovery began long ago with a number of depositions being taken on the issue of
immunity, and considerations of judicial economy dictate that the case remain in the Northern
District. Plaintiff contends that although CMCF's and MDOC's records are presumably present in
the Southern District, it is likely that Wexford Health Sources, Inc., a Florida corporation, does not
store its records in this state. Plaintiff further maintains that the case, which has been on this Court's
docket since 2009, would be further delayed by a transfer to the Southern District, as the transfer
4
would necessitate a new scheduling order and a resetting of the trial date, and would allow
Defendants to re-file their dispositive motions on immunity grounds which would stay the case
pending the transferee court's resolution of the motions.
Plaintiff states that although some
witnesses may live in the Southern District, many, such as employees of Tunica County, the
Decedent's former treating physicians, and the Decedent's family members who have knowledge
and information relevant to the case, live in the Northern District. Plaintiff argues that a transfer at
this point in the case would result in a waste ofjudicial resources and prejudice to Plaintiff Finally,
Plaintiff argues that there is no local interest in having the case decided in the Southern District.
The Court finds that the private and public interest factors do not weigh heavily on either
side. Defendants have not shown that the transferee venue, the Southern District, would be "clearly
more convenient" than the Northern District. See In re Volkswagen ofAm., Inc., 545 F.3d 304,315
(5th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Whether the case is litigated in the Northern District or Southern District,
either Plaintiff or Defendants will have to travel, either Plaintiff's witnesses or Defendants'
witnesses will have to travel, and the documents related to the litigation should be readily accessible
from either location. The Court is loath to disturb the Plaintiff's choice of forum, particularly three
years into the litigation. Thus, the motion to transfer venue, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
[82], is denied.
A separate order in accordance with this opinion shall issue this day.
THIS, the
.1:.:-
of September, 2012.
~ JJ :y~
SENIOR 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?