Entergy Arkansas, Inc. v. Robert S. Kenney, et al.

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: This matter is before the court sua sponte to review the issue of the proper divisional venue. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall reassign this case to the Eastern Division. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 11/14/13. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT S. KENNEY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:13CV166 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court sua sponte to review the issue of the proper divisional venue.
For the following reasons, the court will transfer this case to the Eastern Division of the Eastern
District of Missouri.
Local Rule 2.07(b)(2) of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
states as follows:
All actions brought against multiple defendants all of whom reside in the same division must
be brought in that division, or in the division where the claim for relief arose. If at least two
of the defendants reside in different divisions, such action shall be filed in any division in
which one or more of the defendants reside, or where the claim for relief arose.
Here, the Complaint states that Defendant Robert S. Kenney resides in the City of St. Louis,
Missouri; Defendant Stephen M. Stoll resides in Jefferson County, Missouri; Defendant William P.
Kenney resides in Lee’s Summit, Missouri; and Defendant Daniel Y. Hall resides in Columbia,
Missouri. (Doc. No. 1, ¶ 21). Defendants Kenney and Stoll, therefore, reside in the Eastern Division
of the Eastern District of Missouri, and Defendants Kenney and Hall reside outside this district.
None of the defendants reside in the Southeastern Division of this district. Thus, the defendants’
residence does not establish venue in this division.
Venue may also be proper under Local Rule 2.07(b) if the “claim for relief arose” in this
division. The only potential basis for a finding that this claim arose in the Southeastern Division is
contained in Paragraph 39 of the Complaint, which provides as follows:

The Entergy Operating Companies own and operate generation, transmission, and
distribution facilities located primarily in four states: Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and
Texas. The transmission assets include 15,400 miles of transmission lines with voltages
ranging between 69 kV and 500 kV, nearly all of which is located in the four states just
mentioned. Of the 15,400 miles, a mere 87 miles, or approximately one-half of one percent,
are located in a fifth state: Missouri. The 87 miles of lines are located in Oregon and Taney
Counties and the “Boot Heel” section of Missouri. Entergy Arkansas also owns four
substations in Missouri that interconnect these 87 miles of lines with other utilities in
Missouri.
The Complaint’s sole allegation related to the Southeastern Division, a vague reference to
the “‘Boot Heel’ section of Missouri,” is not sufficient to establish that this claim arose in this
division. Notably, plaintiff states that only “one-half of one percent” of its transmission assets are
located in Missouri, and of those assets, some are located in counties outside this district.
Plaintiff’s Complaint challenges actions of the Missouri Public Service Commission
(“MPSC”). Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting Commissioners of the MPSC from
taking any action to enforce an MPSC order. The named defendants are all Commissioners of the
MPSC, and, as previously discussed, two of the four defendants reside in the Eastern Division.
Thus, the court finds that this case should have been originally filed in the Eastern Division, and the
court will order a divisional transfer.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall reassign this case to the
Eastern Division.
Dated this 14th day of November, 2013.
______________________________
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2