Walker et al v. Beaumont Independent School District et al

Filing 46

MEMORANDUM ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne on 9/30/2015. (ch, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
CALVIN GARY WALKER, et al.
v.
IBEW, et al.

§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 2:15-CV-01283-JRG-RSP

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the Court is the Motion to Transfer Venue (Dkt. No. 7) filed on September 3,
2015 by Defendants The Examiner Corporation, Don Dodd, Jennifer Johnson, and Wayne
Reaud. Various other defendants have since joined in the motion. E.g., Dkt. No. 9, 14, and 19.
This action is brought by Calvin Walker, a Beaumont contractor, and his two companies, and
Jessie Haynes, also a resident of Beaumont, who may have recently relocated to Houston. They
allege a broad conspiracy to violate their civil rights by the Beaumont Independent School
District, and 14 current and former employees, officers and board members, both of the
Beaumont daily newspapers, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and its local
Beaumont branch and four officers, a Beaumont City Council member, two Beaumont
journalists, the United States Attorney for the district encompassing Beaumont, and one
Assistant U.S. Attorney and two Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation stationed
in Beaumont, and one Jefferson County Assistant District Attorney in Beaumont.
APPLICABLE LAW
Section 1404(a) 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (2006). The first inquiry when
analyzing a case’s eligibility for § 1404(a) transfer is “whether the judicial district to which

transfer is sought would have been a district in which the claim could have been filed.” In re
Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 203 (5th Cir. 2004) (“In re Volkswagen I”).
Once that threshold is met, courts analyze both public and private factors relating to the
convenience of parties and witnesses as well as the interests of particular venues in hearing the
case. See Humble Oil & Ref. Co. v. Bell Marine Serv., Inc., 321 F.2d 53, 56 (5th Cir. 1963). The
private factors are: 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 I, 371 F.3d at 203. The public factors are: 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 or in the application of foreign law. Id.
The plaintiff’s choice of venue is not a factor in this analysis. In re Volkswagen of Am.,
Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 314-15 (5th Cir. 2008) (“In re Volkswagen II”). Rather, the plaintiff’s choice
of venue contributes to the defendant’s burden of proving that the transferee venue is “clearly
more convenient” than the transferor venue. Id. at 315. Furthermore, though the private and
public factors apply to most transfer cases, “they are not necessarily exhaustive or exclusive,”
and no single factor is dispositive. In re Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 314-15
DISCUSSION
A.

Proper Venue for the Case
There is no dispute that venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas. Because the

applicable venue statute does not distinguish between the divisions of a judicial district, venue
properly lies in any division of the Eastern District of Texas.

-2-

B.

Private Interest Factors
1.

Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof

This case will clearly involve extensive documents, virtually all of which will by their
very nature be located in Beaumont. Plaintiffs have not identified any documents that will be
located in Marshall.
2.

Availability of Compulsory Process to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses

It appears that most of the relevant witnesses would be subject to compulsory process
either in Marshall or in Beaumont.
3.

Cost of Attendance for Willing Witnesses

Plaintiffs argue that most of the likely witnesses are already parties, but given the nature
of the allegations, it is highly likely that other witnesses will need to be called from each of the
various institutional defendants. Because Beaumont is 190 miles from Marshall, attendance at
trial in Beaumont would be more convenient for all.
4.

All Other Practical Problems that Make Trial of a Case Easy, Expeditious,
and Inexpensive

The parties have not identified any considerations that relate solely to this factor.
However, the Court notes that the Defendants moved for transfer promptly and no significant
proceedings have yet occurred in Marshall.
C.

Public Interest Factors
1.

Administrative Difficulties Flowing From Court Congestion

The parties have not identified any considerations that relate solely to this factor.
2.

Local Interest in Having Localized Interests Decided at Home

The allegations of the Complaint alone show that this dispute is a matter of considerable
local interest in Beaumont. Numerous public officials are named as defendants, and convictions
and indictments by local juries and grand juries are implicated. In fact, Plaintiffs argue that the
-3-

local interest in Beaumont is so intense that they cannot expect to receive a fair trial. While the
undersigned has found that careful voir dire is adequate to ensure a fair and impartial jury even
in very controversial cases, this is a concern best directed to the judge who will conduct that jury
selection proceeding. If that judge decides that a fair trial cannot be had in Beaumont, then
appropriate steps will be taken.
3.

Familiarity of the Forum With the Law that Will Govern the Case and
Avoidance of Unnecessary Problems of Conflict of Laws or in the
Application of Foreign Law

The parties have not identified any considerations that relate to these factors, and are
.
therefore neutral.

CONCLUSION
The Court finds that the convenience of the parties and the witnesses within the meaning
of 28 U.S.C. §1404(a) is clearly best served by transfer of this case to the Beaumont Division of
this Court. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk transfer this action without delay to the Beaumont
Division of this Court and re-assign the case to appropriate judicial officers within that Division.
SIGNED this 3rd day of January, 2012.
SIGNED this 30th day of September, 2015.

____________________________________
ROY S. PAYNE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-4-