Holcombe v. Advanced Integration Technology

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue (Dkt. 3 ) is hereby DENIED. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 3/6/2018. (baf, )

United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION

MALCOLM HOLCOMBE
v.
ADVANCED INTEGRATION
TECHNOLOGY AND ADVANCED
INTEGRATED TOOLING
SOLUTIONS, LLC

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 4:17-CV-00522
Judge Mazzant

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Advanced Integration Technology’s (“AIT”) Motion to
Transfer Venue (Dkt. #3). After reviewing the relevant pleadings and motion, the Court finds that
the motion should be denied.
BACKGROUND
This is a case about AIT’s termination of Plaintiff Malcolm Holcombe (“Holcombe”).
Specifically, Holcombe alleges that AIT fired him because of his age. AIT is a for-profit
corporation headquartered in Plano, Texas, with over 900 employees worldwide. AIT can be
served with process through its CEO Ed Chalupa (“Chalupa”)—its registered agent for service—
in Plano, Texas. AIT also has facilities in Grand Prairie, Texas; San Antonio, Texas; Bethell,
Washington; Chesterfield, Michigan; Langley, British Columbia, Canada; Leganes, Spain; and
Umea, Sweden.
Holcombe alleges that Chalupa recruited him and AIT hired him to work at AIT’s facility
in Chesterfield, Michigan—Advanced Integrated Tooling Solutions, LLC (“AIT-MI”)—as
Director of Manufacturing Operations on August 12, 2013 (Dkt. #8 at p. 4). Holcombe claims that
AIT hired him as Director of Manufacturing Operations for manufacturing facilities of AIT, not
just of AIT-MI (Dkt. #8 at p. 4).

While AIT and AIT-MI are separate legal entities, Holcombe alleges that they are one
company from an operational standpoint (Dkt. #8 at p. 7). Holcombe contends that the two
companies share common personnel, human resources departments, and centralized control at
AIT’s corporate headquarters in Plano, Texas.
On March 30, 2016, Michael Wellham (“Wellham”)—AIT’s Vice President of Automation
and Tooling—allegedly emailed an employee termination list of thirty-two employees to Sarah
Geiser (“Geiser”)—Director of Human Resources for AIT-MI—and Steve Schifflebine
(“Schifflebine”)—Production Manager of AIT-MI. Wellham purportedly sent courtesy copies to
Ken LaGrandeur (“LaGrandeur”)—AIT-MI’s Director of Business Development—and
Holcombe. Wellham allegedly said that he wanted to finalize the list and begin layoffs when he
got to AIT-MI.
On March 31, 2016, Geiser purportedly emailed a new employee termination list of thirtythree employees to Wellham, LaGrandeur, Holcombe, and Corporate Chief of Security Kory
Keller (“Keller”). In a meeting later that day, Wellham allegedly asked Geiser, LaGrandeur, and
Holcombe about the ages of the employees on the original termination list of thirty-two employees.
Holcombe alleges that Wellham asked about the ages to avoid “an age discrimination problem.”
(Dkt. #14 at p. 4).
Holcombe claims that Wellham emailed a “draft ‘Final Org Structure’” to Bill Pallante1
(“Pallante”), AIT-MI’s Vice President and General Manager, Geiser, and Erica Moreno
(“Moreno”), AIT’s Vice President of HR, on April 5, 2016 (Dkt. #14 at 4). The draft allegedly
showed that Holcombe was no longer responsible in any way for human resources activities.

1

Holcombe does not clearly explain the circumstances of Pallante’s employment. Holcombe’s pleadings state that
Pallante received an email of a “draft ‘Final Org Structure’” from Wellham on April 5, 2016 (Dkt. #14 at p. 4).
Holcombe, however, pleads that “AIT and/or [AIT-MI]” announced on May 9, 2016 that Pallante was joining AITMI, and Pallante would report to Wellham on May 16, 2016.

2

Between April and August of 2016, Holcombe alleges that AIT/AIT-MI continued to reduce
Holcombe’s job responsibilities. On August 12, 2016, Pallante and Geiser purportedly met with
Holcombe to tell him that AIT had eliminated his position and was terminating him.
On July 27, 2017, Holcombe sued AIT for age discrimination (Dkt. #1 at pp. 7–8). On
September 26, 2017, AIT filed a motion to transfer venue (Dkt. #3). On October 18, 2017,
Holcombe responded (Dkt. #8). On October 24, 2017, AIT filed its reply (Dkt. #9). On December
28, 2017, Holcombe filed an amended complaint, adding AIT-MI as a defendant (Dkt. #14).2
LEGAL STANDARD
A district court may transfer any civil case “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses,
in the interest of justice . . . 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). “Section
1404(a) is intended to place discretion in the district court to adjudicate motions for transfer
according to an ‘individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.’” Stewart
Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612,
622 (1964)).
The threshold inquiry when determining eligibility for transfer is “whether the judicial
district to which transfer is sought would have been a district in which the claim could have been
filed,” or whether all parties have consented to a particular jurisdiction. In re Volkswagen AG,
371 F.3d 201, 203 (5th Cir. 2004) (“Volkswagen I”). Once that threshold inquiry is met, the Fifth
Circuit has held that “[t]he determination of ‘convenience’ turns on a number of public and private
interest factors, none of which can be said to be of dispositive weight.” Action Indus., Inc. v. U.S.

2

Due to Holcombe’s later addition of AIT-MI as a defendant (Dkt. #14), AIT alone filed the Motion to Transfer Venue
and the subsequent briefing in support (Dkt. #3; Dkt. #9). In turn, this Order’s analysis considers arguments made by
AIT in support of its Motion to Transfer Venue (Dkt. #3).

3

Fid. & Guar. Co., 358 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir. 2004). The private interest factors include (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 of Am.,
Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“Volkswagen II”). The public interest factors
include (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. These factors are not exhaustive or exclusive, and no single factor
is dispositive. Id. The party seeking transfer of venue must show good cause for the transfer. Id.
The moving party must show that the transferee venue is “clearly more convenient” than the
transferor venue. Id.
ANALYSIS
The parties do not dispute that this case could have been filed in either the Eastern District
of Michigan or in the Eastern District of Texas (Dkt. #3 at p. 3; Dkt. #8 at p. 2). Defendants argue,
however, that the Eastern District of Michigan’s Courthouse in Detroit, Michigan, (the “Eastern
District of Michigan, Detroit Courthouse”) is a more convenient venue for this litigation than the
Eastern District of Texas’s Courthouse in Sherman, Texas, (the “Eastern District of Texas,
Sherman Courthouse”). Thus, the Court must review the private and public interest factors
concerning convenience of a motion to transfer venue. Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 315.

4

I.

The Private Interest Factors

A. The Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof
The Court inquires whether transfer aids the relative ease of access to sources of proof.
“[T]he location of documents is given little weight in determining proper venue unless the
documents ‘are so voluminous [that] their transport is a major undertaking.’” Barnes & Noble
Booksellers, Inc. v. DDR DB SA Ventures, LP, No. SA05CA0002XR, 2005 WL 1279192, at *2
(W.D. Tex. May 5, 2005) (quoting Gardipee v. Petrol. Helicopters, Inc., 49 F. Supp. 2d 925, 931
(E.D. Tex. 1999)). AIT argues that the germane documentary evidence is in the Eastern District
of Michigan at AIT-MI.3 Holcombe counters that “most, (if not all) documentary proof in an [Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967] case” is electronic and can be easily transmitted to
the Eastern District of Texas.4 (Dkt. #8 at p. 9). The documentary evidence in this case is readily
portable. Thus, this factor is neutral in the venue analysis.
B. The Availability of Compulsory Process
The Court next asks whether transfer benefits the availability of compulsory process. A
court’s subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition “within 100 miles
of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person” or “within the
state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person, if the person
(i) is a party or a party’s officer; or (ii) is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur
substantial expense.” FED. R. CIV. P. 45(c).

3

AIT made several other arguments that are irrelevant to this section of the analysis, including that Holcombe does
not reside in the Eastern District of Michigan or in the Eastern District of Texas; Holcombe lives closer to the Eastern
District of Michigan, Detroit Courthouse, than to the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Courthouse; the distance
between AIT-MI and the Eastern District of Michigan, Detroit Courthouse, is 35.1 miles; the distance from AIT-MI
and the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Courthouse, is 1,144 miles; and Holcombe applied for and received
unemployment benefits in Michigan. The Court finds such arguments unpersuasive and irrelevant.
4
Holcombe also irrelevantly argues that AIT is headquartered in Plano, Texas.

5

Holcombe argues that the Eastern District of Texas can wield compulsory process over
seventy percent of relevant and material witnesses since that portion of potential witnesses resides
in Plano, Texas. AIT counters that the most relevant and material witnesses primarily reside in
the Eastern District of Michigan and the Eastern District of Texas has no power of compulsory
process over them. As the Order will discuss in Section C, “Cost of Attendance for Willing
Witnesses,” four of the six most relevant and material witnesses in this case allegedly reside in
Plano, Texas,—well within the Court’s range of compulsory process. One of the highly relevant
and material witnesses—Pallante—supposedly resides in Canfield, Ohio—approximately 238
miles from the Eastern District of Michigan, Detroit Courthouse and 1,195 miles from the Eastern
District of Texas, Sherman Courthouse (Dkt. #3 at p. 8). See infra “The Most Relevant and
Material Witnesses.”

Only one highly relevant and material witness—Geiser—purportedly

resides in the Eastern District of Michigan.

See infra “The Most Relevant and Material

Witnesses.” In turn, the Court can exercise compulsory process over four of the six highly relevant
and material witnesses. Conversely, the Eastern District of Michigan can exercise compulsory
process over only one of the six highly relevant and material witnesses as identified by the Court.
Thus, this factor weighs against transfer.
C. Cost of Attendance for Willing Witnesses
The Court must decide if transfer would benefit the costs of attendance for willing
witnesses. In Volkswagen II, the Fifth Circuit noted that “[a]dditional distance means additional
travel time; additional travel time increases the probability for meal and lodging expenses; and
additional travel time with overnight stays increases the time in which these fact witnesses must
be away from their regular employment.” Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 317. “When the distance
between an existing venue for trial of a matter and a proposed venue under § 1404(a) is more than

6

100 miles, the factor of convenience to witnesses increases in direct relationship to the additional
distance to be traveled.” Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 204–05. “The convenience of witnesses is
probably the single most important factor in transfer analysis.”

In re Genentech, Inc.,

556 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Neil Bros. Ltd. v. World Wide Lines, Inc.,
425 F. Supp. 2d 325, 329 (E.D.N.Y 2006). “[T]he convenience of one key witness may outweigh
the convenience of numerous less important witnesses.” Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Petrol. Sols.,
Inc., 629 F. Supp. 2d 759, 763 (S.D. Tex. 2009).

Finally, “among party and non-party

key-witnesses, a court should give greater weight to the availability and convenience of non-party,
key witnesses.” Id.
AIT argues that most of the relevant and material witnesses in Holcombe’s original and
amended complaints (the “complaints”) (Dkt. #1; Dkt. #14) reside in the Eastern District of
Michigan and the distance between the Eastern District of Michigan and the Eastern District of
Texas is 1,100 miles. AIT points out that many AIT-MI witnesses reside within fifty miles of the
Eastern District of Michigan, Detroit Courthouse. AIT makes no mention in its briefing of whether
these are willing witnesses. AIT further argues that “many non-party witnesses,” who are relevant
and material to this case, work and reside in or near Michigan (Dkt. #9 at p. 2). Holcombe counters
that thirteen Plano-based witnesses are just as close to the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman
Courthouse. Holcombe more helpfully notes that traveling to and lodging in the Eastern District
of Texas is more economical than in the Eastern District of Michigan for two allegedly willing
witnesses—David Schauer, residing in El Paso, Texas, and Holcombe himself, residing in Prairie
View, Illinois. Unfortunately, neither Holcombe nor AIT designates a single, non-party witness
to aid the Court in this section of the analysis.

7

When considering witnesses in this factor of the transfer of venue analysis, “[a] district
court should assess the relevance and materiality of the information the witness may provide.”
In re Genentech, Inc., 556 F.3d at 1343. Thus, the Court asks (1) what witnesses are most relevant
and material to hearing this dispute and (2) where those witnesses reside.
i.

The Most Relevant and Material Witnesses
Holcombe’s complaints are based on the decision to fire him and whether age

discrimination drove that decision. Holcombe alleges that AIT has centralized planning and
human resources operations at its headquarters in Plano, Texas. Holcombe further alleges that
these planning and human resources operations dictate policy across all of AIT’s divisions
worldwide, including AIT-MI.
The pleaded facts and affidavits support this claim. After all, Chalupa—AIT’s CEO—
allegedly recruited Holcombe. Wellham—AIT’s Vice President of Automation and Tooling—
allegedly shared the employee termination list of thirty-two employees with AIT-MI personnel
and said that he wanted to begin layoffs when he got to AIT-MI. Wellham also avowedly asked
about the ages of the employees in the list to avoid “an age discrimination problem.”
(Dkt. #1 at p. 4). Moreover, Wellham supposedly emailed the “draft ‘Final Org Structure’” to
Pallante, Geiser, and Moreno, explaining that Holcombe was no longer responsible for Human
Resources (Dkt. #14 at p. 4). Holcombe also claims that he reported directly to Wellham before
the reorganization. Moreno purportedly sent an AIT-MI employee letter from AIT’s Chief
Operating Officer Karl Williams (“Williams”) to Holcombe, announcing LaGranduer as President
reporting to Wellham. That letter also explained, “[w]e appreciate each individual’s contribution
and value to AIT, and look forward to an exciting future.” (Dkt. #14 at p. 3). Moreno allegedly
asked Holcombe to issue the letter to all of AIT-MI’s employees and Holcombe did so the same

8

day. Holcombe also claims that Moreno received a copy of the “draft ‘Final Org Structure’” from
Wellham (Dkt. #14 at p. 4). Finally, Holcombe asserts that the AIT-MI letter was from Williams
(Dkt. #14 at p. 3).
This supports Holcombe’s claim that a central management and personnel structure
based at AIT in Plano, Texas, governed AIT and AIT-MI. After all, AIT’s Senior Executives—
Chalupa, Moreno, Wellham, and Williams—were allegedly involved in AIT-MI’s management
and personnel policy, including Holcombe’s recruitment, the termination of AIT-MI employees,
and AIT-MI’s corporate organization.
Holcombe’s complaints also suggest that Pallante and Geiser played significant roles in
the events leading to his termination. Wellham allegedly emailed the “draft ‘Final Org Structure’”
to Pallante on April 5, 2016, “showing HR had been taken away from Holcombe’s [professional
responsibilities].” (Dkt. #14 at p. 4). On May 16, 2016, Pallante supposedly became Vice
President and General Manager of AIT-MI, reporting directly to Wellham. Holcombe avers that
Pallante began to reduce his job responsibilities in June 2016 (Dkt. #14 at p. 5). First, Pallante
purportedly disregarded Holcombe’s opinions about candidates when hiring for a controller
position that was technically “still under Holcombe on the org chart.” (Dkt. #14 at p. 5). Pallante
then avowedly hired a contractor for the position—Steinmetz—who technically reported to
Holcombe but was, in fact, directly managed by Pallante. In July 2016, Pallante supposedly
“reviewed and revised Holcombe’s job description.” (Dkt. #14 at p. 6). Around that time Pallante
purportedly told Holcome that “he was taking over Security”—one of Holcombe’s existing job
responsibilities (Dkt. #14 at p. 6). Pallante also allegedly told Holcombe to “delegate invoicing
and other lower-level activities” and focus on “higher-level activities” but Pallante never defined
a “higher-level activity” for Holcombe (Dkt. #14 at p. 6). Thereafter, Holcombe claims that

9

Pallante was “taking away Holcombe’s job from under Holcombe’s eyes.” (Dkt. #14 at p. 6).
Additionally, Geiser allegedly received the first employee termination list of thirty-two employees
from Wellham (Dkt. #14 at p. 3). Geiser also supposedly emailed a list of thirty-three employees
to terminate to Wellham, LaGrandeur, Holcombe, and Keller (Dkt. #14 at p. 3). Later that day,
Wellham asked Geiser and others about the ages of the employees on the original termination list
in order to avoid “an age discrimination problem.” (Dkt. #14 at p. 4). Like Pallante, Geiser
purportedly received Wellham’s “draft ‘Final Org Structure.’” (Dkt. #14 at p. 4). Finally, Geiser
and Pallante met with Holcombe to tell him that AIT had eliminated his job and he was being
terminated (Dkt. #14 at p. 4). Thus, Pallante and Geiser along with the aforementioned AIT
officers—appear to be a highly relevant and material witness.
Holcombe’s complaints certainly mention several AIT-MI employees primarily residing
in the Eastern District of Michigan. LaGrandeur allegedly received the termination list of thirtythree employees from Geiser. Paul Schoenherr and Lisa Schoenherr purportedly attended a
meeting where Pallante insulted Steinmetz’s and Holcombe’s ages. Such claims, however, do not
suggest that these parties were instrumental in the decision and effort to fire Holcombe based on
his age. Thus, none of these witnesses appear to be highly relevant or material to this case.
The aforementioned AIT officers, Pallante, and Geiser allegedly made and directly
executed the decision to fire Holcombe. Thus, the Court finds that the dispute’s most relevant and
material witnesses are AIT’s CEO Chalupa, AIT’s Vice President of HR Moreno, AIT’s Chief
Operating Officer Williams, AIT’s Vice President of Automation and Tooling Wellham, AIT-MI’s
Vice President and General Manager Pallante, and AIT-MI’s Human Resources Director Geiser
(the “Critical Witnesses”).

10

ii.

Where the Critical Witnesses Reside
Holcombe alleges that all but two of the Critical Witnesses reside in Plano, Texas,

(Dkt. #8, Exhibit 2 at pp. 4–6). Pallante, on the other hand, purportedly resides in Canfield, Ohio
(Dkt. #8, Exhibit 2 at p. 5). Geiser supposedly resides in Washington, Michigan, “which is in the
Detroit metropolitan area.” (Dkt. #8, Exhibit 2 at p. 4; Dkt. #3, Exhibit 1 at p. 3). AIT did not
contest these allegations (Dkt. #3, Exhibit 1). Thus, the Critical Witnesses, barring Pallante and
Geiser, appear to reside in the Eastern District of Texas.
iii.

The Eastern District of Michigan, Detroit Courthouse Is Not “Clearly More
Convenient” for the Critical Witnesses and for the Willing Witnesses
Due to the parties’ unfocused briefing, the Court is aware of only two, allegedly willing

witnesses—Schauer and Holcombe. Holcombe claims that the Eastern District of Texas is more
convenient for these two, willing witnesses as travel to and lodging in this District are more
economical for them. Moreover, since all but two of the Critical Witnesses allegedly reside in
Plano, Texas, the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Courthouse, is a more convenient venue for
the majority of the Critical Witnesses than the Eastern District of Michigan, Detroit Courthouse.
Furthermore, whether the Critical Witnesses prove willing or unwilling to appear, the Court can
readily wield compulsory process over all but two of them. See supra Section B: “The Availability
of Compulsory Process.” Thus, this factor weighs against transfer.
D. All Other Practical Problems
The Court now considers whether any other practical problems affect the transfer
analysis. “[G]arden-variety delay associated with transfer is not to be taken into consideration
when ruling on a 1404(a) motion to transfer. Were it, delay would militate against transfer in every
case.” In re Radmax, 720 F.3d 285, 289 (5th Cir. 2013). Further, “the convenience of counsel is

11

not a factor to be assessed in determining whether to transfer a case under 1404(a).” Volkswagen
I, 371 F.3d at 206.
AIT argues that no practical problems impede litigating this case in the Eastern District
of Michigan. AIT submits that Holcombe only filed his case on July 27, 2017, and no proceedings
have been conducted to date. AIT further contends that it promptly filed its motion to transfer.
AIT finally avers that Holcombe’s burden to retain local counsel does not subvert transfer of venue.
Holcombe counters that the case is under way in the Eastern District of Texas and the Court has
already issued an Order Governing Proceedings. Holcombe further asserts that transfer would
delay this case for several months as he would have to find a new lawyer to practice in the Eastern
District of Michigan. There is no substantial evidence that transferring venue would unduly burden
either party. Thus, this factor is neutral in the transfer of venue analysis.
II.

Public Interest Factors

A. The Administrative Difficulties Flowing from Court Congestion
The Court now asks whether administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion
affect the transfer analysis. AIT argues that transferring the case would alleviate congestion in the
Eastern District of Texas. AIT submits that for the twelve-month period ending on June 30, 2017,
the Eastern District of Texas had “eight judges who each had 864 weighted filings.”
(Dkt. #3 at p. 9). On the other hand, the Eastern District of Michigan had fifteen judges with each
having 342 weighted filings (Dkt. #3 at p. 9). Thus, AIT contends that this case should proceed
just as expediently in the Eastern District of Michigan. Holcombe concedes that this factor is
neutral.

The most recent statistics obtained by the Court for the twelve-month period ending on

September 30, 2017, indicate that the median time from filing to trial in civil cases in the Eastern

12

District of Texas was 23.8 months, as compared to 25.9 months in the Eastern District of
Michigan.5 The median time from filing to disposition in the Eastern District of Texas was 6.9
months and 9.8 months in the Eastern District of Michigan. Thus, this factor is neutral as the case
resolution speeds of both the Eastern District of Michigan and the Eastern District of Texas are
similar.
B. The Local Interests in Having Localized Interests Decided at Home
The Court next asks whether local interests affect the transfer analysis. AIT argues that
the citizens in the Eastern District of Michigan, where Holcombe worked, have a strong interest in
correcting alleged age discrimination in the workplace. AIT further contends that the Court
“should look to where the injury occurred and in age discrimination cases, the injury typically
occurs in the district where the plaintiff was discharged.” (Dkt. #3 at p. 10). Holcombe counters
that the evidence “points to Corporate [sic] involvement in Plano, Texas.” (Dkt. #8 at p. 12).
The Court is of the opinion that the Eastern District of Texas has a strong interest in
presiding over this controversy because AIT is located in the District, all but two of the Critical
Witnesses allegedly reside in the District, and AIT’s central management allegedly made the
decision to fire Holcombe in the District. Finally, Holcombe resided in Texas during his tenure at
AIT-MI, maintaining a home in Texas, holding a Texas driver’s license, and even voting in Texas.
Therefore, the Court finds that this factor weighs against transfer.
C. Familiarity of the Forum with the Governing Law
The Court considers whether the familiarity of the forum with this matter’s governing
law affects the transfer analysis. This case concerns the application of federal employment law.
Neither party suggests, nor is the Court aware of, any reason why the Eastern District of Texas or

5

See Federal Court Management Statistics, September 2017,
www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/na/federal-court-management-statistics/2017/09/30-1, accessed February 2, 2018.

13

the Eastern District of Michigan will be more familiar with this area of law. As such, this factor
is neutral.
D. The Avoidance of Unnecessary Problems of Conflicts of Law
The Court finally asks whether the avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflicts of
law affects the transfer analysis. AIT argues that there is no issue with respect to conflicts of law
or the application of foreign laws. Holcombe counters that AIT made him sign a Non-Competition
and Non-Disclosure Agreement that stated, “[t]his Agreement shall be governed by and construed
in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas without regard to principles of conflicts of law.”
(Dkt. #8 at pp. 12–13). Holcombe argues that since the non-compete agreement impacts his ability
to find new employment, the presiding court will have to construe Texas law and not Michigan
law. Both the Eastern District of Texas and the Eastern District of Michigan are equally capable
of applying Texas law. Thus, this factor is neutral.
CONCLUSION
Transfer would be inconvenient for most of the Critical Witnesses, as all but two allegedly
reside in the Eastern District of Texas. The management decisions giving rise to the lawsuit also
allegedly occurred in the Eastern District of Texas. Finally, the Eastern District of Texas has a
compelling interest in hearing cases involving age discrimination at a large company
headquartered within it.
After considering the above factors, the Court is of the opinion that Defendant has not
shown “good cause” that transfer to the Eastern District of Michigan is “clearly more convenient”
than the current venue. Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 315.
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue (Dkt. #3) is hereby
DENIED.

14

SIGNED this 6th day of March, 2018.

___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE