Gibson v Taco Bell of America LLC

Filing 60

MEMORANDUM ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne on 08/01/2014. (nkl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
JASON R. GIBSON
v.
TACO BELL OF AMERICA LLC

§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 2:13-CV-994- JRG-RSP

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the Court are Defendant Taco Bell of America LLC’s (“Taco Bell”) Motions to
Transfer Venue to the Sherman Division of the Eastern District of Texas (Dkt. No. 6, filed
December 20, 2013) and for Hearing on the Motion to Transfer (Dkt. No. 8, filed January 3,
2014). Taco Bell argues that the Sherman Division of the Eastern District of Texas is a clearly
more convenient forum for this case. Plaintiff Jason Gibson opposes transfer. After considering
all of the record evidence and weighing the various factors, the Court finds that the Sherman
Division of the Eastern District of Texas is a clearly more convenient venue.
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.
B.

Transfer Factors
The court has considered the cost of attendance for willing witnesses, the relative ease of

access to sources of proof, the availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of
witnesses, and all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious, and
inexpensive. Further, the court has considered local interest in having localized interests decided
at home, the familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case, administrative
difficulties flowing from court congestion, and avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of

-2-

laws or in the application of foreign law. Based on the above factors, the Court finds that Taco
.

Bell has met their burden of showing that the Sherman Division of the Eastern District of Texas
is a clearly more convenient venue for this case.
CONCLUSION
After considering all of the relevant evidence and factors, the Court finds that the
Sherman Division of the Eastern District of Texas is a clearly more convenient venue for this
case. Accordingly, the Motion for Hearing (Dkt. No. 8) is DENIED, the Motion to Transfer
(Dkt. No. 6) is GRANTED, and it is ORDERED that this case be transferred to the Sherman
Division of the Eastern District of Texas.
SIGNED this 3rd day of January, 2012.
SIGNED this 1st day of August, 2014.

____________________________________
ROY S. PAYNE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-3-