A to Z Muni-Dot, a Division of Howard Industries, Inc. v. Martell Electric, LLC et al

Filing 26

ORDER denying 18 Motion to Change Venue. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 9/24/2013 (scp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
HATTIESBURG DIVISION
A TO Z MUNI-DOT, A DIVISION OF
HOWARD INDUSTRIES, INC.
V.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-28-KS-MTP

MARTELL ELECTRIC, LLC, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Defendant Martell Electric, LLC filed a Motion to Transfer Venue [18] of this
case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). For the reasons stated below, the Court denies the motion.
Martell has the burden of showing “good cause” for a transfer. In re Volkswagen
of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008). “[T]o show good cause means that a
moving party, in order to support its claim for a transfer, must satisfy the statutory
requirements and clearly demonstrate that a transfer is for the convenience of the
parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.” Id.
Section 1404(a) provides, in pertinent part: “For 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 . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Thus, the preliminary question posed by Section 1404(a) is “whether a civil action
‘might have been brought’ in the destination venue.” In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545
F.3d at 312. The phrase “where it might have been brought” refers to the plaintiff’s
initial complaint, rather than the case at the time of the proposed transfer. Hoffman

v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 342-43, 80 S. Ct. 1084, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1254 (1960); see also VebaChemie A.G. v. M/V Getafix, 711 F.2d 1243, 1246 (5th Cir. 1983) (“Following the plain
words of this statute, the Supreme Court has prohibited transfers to alternative federal
forums unless the suit ‘might have been brought’ there at the time the plaintiff filed
his original suit.”). Therefore, Martell must first demonstrate that this case could have
originally been brought in the Western District of Michigan.
Section 1391 provides that a diversity action like this one may be brought in “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 is situated . . . .” 28
U.S.C. § 1391(b). Martell’s briefing focuses almost exclusively on facts alleged in its
own counterclaims and defenses – which are irrelevant to the question of whether this
case might have been brought in the Western District of Michigan. Hoffman, 363 U.S.
at 342-43; Veba-Chemie, 711 F.2d at 1246. Martell has not argued or presented any
legal authority demonstrating that a “substantial part of the events . . . giving rise to
the claim[s],” as alleged in the Complaint, occurred in the Western District of
Michigan. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
Indeed, Plaintiff filed this case as a breach of contract/open account matter
arising from a sale contract executed by the parties in Ellisville, Mississippi. Martell
allegedly breached the agreement by failing to remit payment to Plaintiff in
Mississippi. Documents attached to the Complaint show that the goods were delivered
to Michigan, but Martell has not offered any argument or authority that this is
sufficient to meet Section 1391(b)’s “substantial part” standard.

For these reasons, the Court denies Defendant Martell Electric, LLC’s Motion
to Transfer Venue [18].
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this 24th day of September, 2013.

s/ Keith Starrett
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE