Klein v. Attorney General of the United States US Department of Justice et al

Filing 29

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE (DOC. 21 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman on 4/11/2016. (srb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
GERALDINE KLEIN,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:15-cv-134

vs.
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE, et al.,

Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman
(Consent Case)

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINITFF’S MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE (DOC. 21)

This civil consent case is before the Court on Plaintiff Geraldine Klein’s motion to
change venue. Doc. 21. Defendants filed a memorandum in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion.
Doc. 25. Plaintiff did not file a reply memorandum and the time for doing so has expired. The
Court has carefully considered Plaintiff’s motion and Defendant’s memorandum in opposition,
and Plaintiff’s motion to change venue is now ripe for decision.
Plaintiff, a former employee of the United States Air Force at Wright Patterson Air Force
Base (“WPAFB”) in Dayton, Ohio, asserts claims of disability discrimination against her former
employer under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2003, et seq. Doc. 27 at PageID 229, 246-50. Although she chose to file her
action in this Court, Plaintiff now moves to change venue to the Northern District of Ohio or,
alternatively, to the Western Division of this Court in Cincinnati, Ohio. Doc. 21. Plaintiff
argues that a change of venue is necessary because Defendant “is a well-known and established
employer who employs thousands of residents and/or their family members throughout the
Cincinnati, Dayton, Fairborn, and Beavercreek, Ohio area” and, thus, she asserts that it may be

nearly impossible to “find enough impartial individuals to sit on a jury in this matter.” Doc. 21
at PageID 177.
Change of venue is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1404, which provides that “[f]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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Courts generally transfer
cases to “prevent the waste of time, energy and money and to protect litigants, witnesses, and the
public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense.” Pacific Life Ins. Co. v. U.S. Bank Nat’l
Ass’n, No. 1:15-cv-416, 2016 WL 223683, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 19, 2016) (citing Van Dusen v.
Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964)). The party requesting a change of venue bears the burden of
establishing the need for the requested change. Id. (citing Kay v. Nat’l City Mortgage Co., 494
F. Supp.2d 845, 849-50 (S.D. Ohio 2007); Jamhour v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 211 F. Supp.2d 941,
945 (S.D. Ohio 2002)).
“Transfer under § 1404(a) turns on a two-pronged test: (1) whether the plaintiff could
have brought the action in the transferee court; and (2) whether, on balance, the considerations of
the parties and the interests of justice favor transfer.” Id. Here, the Government concedes that
this action could have been originally brought in both requested transferee courts. See doc. 25 at
PageID 194-95; see also 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(5) (stating that actions for employment
discrimination under Title VII “may be brought in any judicial district in the State in which the
unlawful employment practice is alleged to have been committed”). Thus, the question in
dispute is “whether the balance of public and private interest factors weighs strongly in favor of
transfer.” Pac. Life Ins. Co., 2016 WL 223683, at *3. The Court finds that consideration of
these factors do not weigh strongly in favor of transfer.

2

Although this seat of Court has heard a number of cases involving the United States Air
Force as a result of its proximity to WPAFB, Plaintiff cites no case and points to no instance
where a change of venue has been granted for the reasons advanced. Although WPAFB, without
dispute, significantly impacts the economy in the Dayton, Ohio region, the undersigned is not
convinced that the Court would be incapable of -- or would even face a significant obstacle in -empaneling a fair and impartial jury drawn from the counties within the Western Division of this
Court at Dayton (Champaign, Clark, Darke, Greene, Miami, Montgomery, Preble, and Shelby).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a change of venue is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date:

April 11, 2016

s/ Michael J. Newman
Michael J. Newman
United States Magistrate Judge

3