Smith v. Real Page, Inc.

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue, or Alternatively, to Transfer Venue to the Northern District of Texas (Dkt. 8 ) is hereby DENIED. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 6/25/2018. (baf, )

United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION

JULIAN SMITH
v.
REAL PAGE, INC.

§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 4:18-CV-00025
Judge Mazzant

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue, or Alternatively,
to Transfer Venue to the Northern District of Texas (Dkt. #8). After reviewing the relevant
pleadings and motions, the Court finds that the motion should be denied.
BACKGROUND
This case concerns an action for damages under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”).
In June 2014, Plaintiff Julian Smith applied for housing at Southgate Towers (“Southgate”),
located in Miami Beach, Florida. Southgate required Plaintiff to undergo a background check to
determine his eligibility, and requested a consumer report from Defendant Real Page, Inc. On or
about June 5, 2014, Defendant sent Plaintiff a notice indicating that Southgate took adverse action
against him due to the information contained in the consumer report.

The adverse action

notification indicated that Defendant included certain criminal history information, which was the
basis for Southgate’s denial of Plaintiff’s application. The notice also informed Plaintiff that he
could make a dispute with Defendant at its principal place of business located at 4000 International
Pkwy., Carrollton, Texas 75007. Thereafter, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to either
reinvestigate or delete the information as required by the FCRA (Dkt. #11 at ¶¶ 54, 55). Plaintiff
also asserts that even after repeated requests, Defendant failed to provide him with a copy of his
file, also in violation of the FCRA (Dkt. #11 at ¶ 59).

Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Nevada. Defendant is a Delaware corporation and
previously maintained its principal place of business at 4000 International Pkwy., Carrollton,
Texas 75007 (located within this district) until as early as September 2016. Defendant currently
maintains its principal place of business in Richardson, Texas, within the Northern District of
Texas.
On January 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant in the Eastern District of Texas
(Dkt. #1). On April 6, 2018, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue, or
Alternatively, to Transfer Venue to the Northern District of Texas (Dkt. #8). On April 27, 2018,
Plaintiff filed a response, which included a request to transfer venue to the Southern District of
Florida, and an Amended Complaint, which clarified the basis of venue in this district
(Dkt. #11 at ¶ 10). On May 11, 2018, Defendant filed a reply (Dkt. #18).
LEGAL STANDARD
I. Rule 12(b)(3) Improper Venue
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) allows a party to move to dismiss an action for
“improper venue.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(3). Once a defendant raises improper venue by motion,
“the burden of sustaining venue will be on [the] Plaintiff.” Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. RBP Chem.
Tech., Inc., No. 1:07-CV-699, 2008 WL 686156, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 6, 2008). “Plaintiff may
carry this burden by establishing facts that, if taken to be true, establish proper venue.” Id.
(citations omitted). The Court “must accept as true all allegations in the complaint and resolve all
conflicts in favor of the plaintiff.” Mayfield v. Sallyport Glob. Holdings, Inc., No. 6:16-CV-459,
2014 WL 978685, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 5, 2014) (citing Ambraco, Inc. v. Bossclip, B.V., 570 F.3d
233, 237–38 (5th Cir. 2009)). In determining whether venue is proper, “the Court may look beyond
the complaint to evidence submitted by the parties.” Ambraco, 570 F.3d at 238. If venue is

2

improper, the Court must dismiss, “or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any
district or division in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); FED. R. CIV. P.
12(b)(3).
II. § 1404 Transfer
Section 1404 permits a district court to 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.” 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 purpose of § 1404 “is to
prevent the waste ‘of time, energy and money’ and ‘to protect the litigants, witnesses and the public
against unnecessary inconvenience and expense . . .’” Van Dusen, 376 U.S. at 616 (quoting Cont’l
Grain Co. v. The FBL-585, 364 U.S. 19, 27 (1960)).
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 consent 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 “[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.
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.,

3

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 neither exhaustive nor 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. The plaintiff’s choice of venue is not a factor in this analysis, but rather contributes to the
defendant’s burden to show good cause for the transfer. Id. at 315 n.10 (“[W]hile a plaintiff has
the privilege of filing his claims in any judicial division appropriate under the general venue
statute, § 1404(a) tempers the effects of the exercise of this privilege.”). However, “when the
transferee venue is not clearly more convenient than the venue chosen by the plaintiff, the
plaintiff’s choice should be respected.” Id. at 315. And while the multi-factor analysis is
informative, ultimately, “the district court has broad discretion in deciding whether to order a
transfer.” Balawajder v. Scott, 160 F.3d 1066, 1067 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting Caldwell v. Palmetto
State Sav. Bank, 811 F.2d 916, 919 (5th Cir. 1987)).
ANALYSIS
I. Rule 12(b)(3) Improper Venue
The FCRA provides that “an action to enforce any liability created under this title . . . may
be brought in any appropriate United States district court.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681p. Thus, venue for
FCRA actions is established under the general venue rules found in 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
See Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 312 (“When no special, restrictive venue statute applies [as for

4

FCRA actions], the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391, controls a plaintiff's choice
of venue.”). Pursuant to § 1391(b),
[A] civil action may be brought in—
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents
of the State in which the district is located;
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving
rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the
action is situated; or
(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided
in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's
personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.
. . . For all venue purposes . . .
(2) an entity with the capacity to sue and be sued in its common name under
applicable law, whether or not incorporated, shall be deemed to reside, if a
defendant, in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court’s
personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question and, if a plaintiff,
only in the judicial district in which it maintains its principal place of business[.]
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), (c)(2).
Defendant argues that venue is improper under § 1391(b)(1) because this district lacks
either specific or personal jurisdiction over it. Defendant bases its argument on having transferred
its principal place of business from Denton County, Texas, to Dallas County, Texas, within the
Northern District of Texas, before Plaintiff filed suit (Dkt. #18 at p. 2). It also argues venue is
improper under § 1391(b)(2) because “the events giving rise to this claim did not occur in the
Eastern District [of Texas]” (Dkt. #8 at p. 3).
Plaintiff argues that venue is proper in this district under § 1391(b)(2), contending that a
“substantial part of the events . . . giving rise to the claim occurred” within this district
(Dkt. #12 at p. 2). 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant’s alleged non-

compliance occurred at its previous principal place of business, within the Eastern District of
Texas, and constitutes a substantial part of the events that gave rise to his claim.
5

To establish venue, Plaintiff needs to satisfy the requirements of one of the three
alternatives set out in § 1391(b). Atl. Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Tex.,
571 U.S. 49, 56 (2013). “[Section 1391(b)(1) and § 1391(b)(2)] define the preferred judicial
districts for venue in a typical case, but the third paragraph provides a fallback option: If no other
venue is proper, then venue will lie in “any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to
the court’s personal jurisdiction.” Id. at 56–57 (emphasis added). Thus, a plaintiff suing only one
defendant, or multiple defendants who all reside in the same forum state, has the option of laying
venue through either § 1391(b)(1) or § 1391(b)(2). See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)−(2). Therefore,
although Plaintiff did not address whether venue is proper under § 1391(b)(1), venue can still be
properly established solely under § 1391(b)(2). 1 See Atl. Marine, 571 U.S. at 56.
Defendant’s notification of adverse action contained a physical address to which disputes
should be directed. That address is within the Eastern District of Texas, supporting the inference
that the reporting and dispute resolution decisions were made in this district (Dkt. #11 at ¶ 40).
After Plaintiff filed his dispute with Defendant, Defendant allegedly failed to reinvestigate or to
delete the disputed information (Dkt. #11 at ¶¶ 54, 55). Also, when Plaintiff requested his file and
Defendant allegedly failed to provide it, Defendant’s principal place of business was still located
within this district (Dkt. #11 at ¶ 59). These actions by Defendant, taken as true, constitute alleged
failures to comply with its statutory duties under the FCRA. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681i.
Since these alleged failures occurred in the Eastern District of Texas and constitute
substantial parts of the events that led to this suit, venue is proper in this district. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391(b)(2); Poimboeuf v. United States, No. 2:18-CV-00008, 2018 WL 1903598, at *2

1

While the Court finds it unnecessary to reach the issue, the Court would likely hold that for venue purposes,
Defendant is subject to specific personal jurisdiction in this district because Plaintiff’s claim arises “out of, or [is]
related to, defendant’s contacts with th[is] forum.” Luv N' care, Ltd. v. Insta-Mix, Inc., 438 F.3d 465, 469 (5th Cir.
2006). Thus, supporting venue under § 1391(b)(1).

6

(E.D. Tex. Apr. 2, 2018) (citing Uffner v. La Reunion Francaise, S.A., 244 F.3d 38, 42
(1st Cir. 2001) (“A substantial part of the events does not mean the single triggering event of a
cause of action, but rather looks to the entirety of the claim”)); Redi-Mix Sols., Ltd. v. Express
Chipping, Inc., No. 6:16-CV-298-RWS-KNM, 2017 WL 3671377, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 9, 2017)
(noting that under § 1391(b)(2) venue may be proper in more than one district). 2
II. § 1404 Transfer
In this case, both parties prefer a venue other than the Eastern District of Texas. Plaintiff
seeks a transfer to the Southern District of Florida, and Defendant seeks a transfer to the Northern
District of Texas (Dkt. #8; Dkt. #12). Transfer under § 1404 can only be granted “to any other
district or division where [the action] might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). After
finding that the action could have been brought in the proposed district, the Court conducts the
convenience analysis using the private and public factors. Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 315.
A. The Appropriateness of the Proposed Forums
Here, venue could have been brought in both of the parties’ preferred districts. The
Northern District of Texas would have been a proper venue under § 1391(b)(1) because
Defendant’s principal place of business is currently located there; thus, subjecting it to general
personal jurisdiction there. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1); Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117,
120 (2014); Monkton Ins. Servs. v. Ritter, 768 F.3d 429, 432 (5th Cir. 2014). The Southern District
of Florida, Plaintiff’s preferred forum, would also have been a proper venue under § 1391(b)(2).
It is the location where Plaintiff suffered harm due to the denial of his housing application, which
also constitutes a substantial part of the events leading to this suit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2);

2

The Court notes that all actions and activities that make up Plaintiff’s claim occurred in either the Eastern District of
Texas or the Southern District of Florida. None of the actions that make up Plaintiff’s claim occurred in the Northern
District of Texas.

7

Myers v. Bennett Law Offices, 238 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding venue is proper for
FCRA actions where plaintiff suffers “at least one of the harms”).
B. The Private Interest Factors
The Fifth Circuit considers four non-exclusive “private” factors: (1) the relative ease of
access to sources of proof; (2) the availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of
willing witnesses; (3) the cost of attendance for willing witnesses; and (4) all other practical
problems that make a trial easy, expeditious, and inexpensive. Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 315.
1. The Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof
The first private interest factor is the relative ease of access to sources of proof. Volkswagen
I, 371 F.3d at 203.

“The Fifth Circuit has cautioned this factor remains relevant despite

technological advances having made electronic document production commonplace.” DataQuill,
Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. A-13-CA-706-SS, 2014 WL 272201, at *3 (W.D. Tex. June 13, 2014)
(citing Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 316). “[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 and 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. Helicopteros, Inc., 49 F. Supp. 2d 925, 931 (E.D. Tex 1999)). See Cont’l Airlines, Inc. v.
Am. Airlines, Inc., 805 F. Supp. 1392, 1397 (S.D. Tex. 1992) (“documents can be produced and
examined anywhere for discovery purposes”).
Here, both parties argue that their preferred forums contain the important documentary
evidence necessary for the resolution of this case (Dkt. #8 at p. 10; Dkt. #12 at p. 5). Defendant
asserts that the “documentary evidence and [its] internal systems” are all at its principal place of
business in Richardson, Texas (Dkt. #8 at p. 10). Plaintiff counters that the evidence of his

8

damages, such as “documents concerning Plaintiff’s application, denial of housing [and rental
community’s] standards,” is all in Miami, Florida (Dkt. #12 at p. 5). But neither party alleges that
the documentary evidence in those locations is of such size as to make its transport a “major
undertaking.” Thus, because the documentary evidence is readily portable, this factor is neutral.
2. 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, 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).
Defendant concedes this factor is neutral (Dkt. #8 at p. 10). Plaintiff argues that the
witnesses who can corroborate his damages are all residents of Florida and, thus, would not be
subject to compulsory process in either the Northern or Eastern District of Texas (Dkt. #12 at p. 6).
Plaintiff only identifies one such witness (Dkt. #12 at p. 6). Defendant identifies three potential
witnesses, all employed by the Defendant at its principal place of business (Dkt. #18 at p. 4).
Defendant’s principal place of business is located at 2201 Lakeside Blvd., Richardson, Texas
75082, merely 50 miles away, well within the 100-mile subpoena power of this Court (Dkt. #18
at p. 5). As for Plaintiff’s witness in Florida, the Court is not persuaded that his testimony is
indispensable.

Plaintiff himself acknowledges his testimony is solely concerned with the

corroboration of damages (Dkt. #12 at p. 6). The Court concludes that the evidence presented by
the testimony of Plaintiff’s witness could easily be produced in documentary form. Therefore,
between the Eastern and Northern District of Texas this factor is neutral, as courts in both districts
would have subpoena power over the key witnesses in this case.

9

In contrast, if the action were transferred to the Southern District of Florida, Defendant’s
witnesses would certainly be outside the subpoena power of that court. Thus, this factor is neutral
as between the Northern and Eastern District of Texas but disfavors transfer to the Southern
District of Florida.
3. Cost of Attendance for Willing Witnesses
The Court must decide if the costs of attendance for willing witnesses would benefit from
a transfer. 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
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 Genetech, 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, keywitnesses.” Id.
Both parties merely offer conclusory statements as support that travel to this district would
be overly burdensome and expensive for their witnesses (Dkt. #8 at p. 10; Dkt. #12 at p. 7). As
discussed in the last factor’s analysis, Defendant’s principal place of business is merely 50 miles

10

away from this Court. Therefore, Defendant’s employee-witnesses would not incur an overnight
stay or any other expenses associated with long-distance travel. Also, for the same reasons as the
previous factor, the Court is not persuaded that Plaintiff’s witness in Florida can be classified as a
“key” witness when his testimony would only corroborate Plaintiff’s damages (See Dkt. #12
at p. 6). Thus, this factor is neutral as between the Eastern and Northern Districts of Texas.
Conversely, if the action were transferred to the Southern District of Florida, Defendant’s
witnesses’ travel expenses would increase due to the action being litigated in a court hundreds of
miles away. Plaintiff’s argument that Defendant is a national corporation with employees “all over
the United States and the world” fails to recognize that the employees with relevant knowledge of
the actions litigated in this case are in Texas and not “all over the world” (Dkt. #12 at p. 7). Also,
Plaintiff’s argument that the Southern District of Florida is more convenient for him personally
because he will be moving his residence to that district later this year is unpersuasive because he
already selected this district as his preferred venue for filing (Dkt. #12 at p. 8). See Volkswagen
II, 545 F.3d at 314 n.10 (noting plaintiff’s choice of venue is not a distinct factor in § 1404
analysis); See also Howard, 2003 WL 21435750, at *3 (citing Huisman v. Geuder, Paescke &
Frey Co., 250 F. Supp. 631, 633 (E.D. Wis. 1966) (noting that plaintiff’s convenience is given no
weight when venue is proper in Plaintiff’s originally filed forum)). Thus, this factor is neutral as
between the Eastern and Northern District of Texas but disfavors transfer to the Southern District
of Florida.
4. All Other Practical Problems
The Court then 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.”

11

In re Radmax, 720 F.3d 285, 289 (5th Cir. 2013). Further, “the convenience of counsel is not a
factor to be assessed in determining whether to transfer under § 1404(a).” Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d
at 206. Here, neither party argues, nor does the Court find any practical problems that either favor
or disfavor transfer (Dkt. #8 at pp. 10−11; Dkt. #12 at p. 8). Thus, this factor is neutral.
C. Public Interest Factors
The Fifth Circuit applies four non-exclusive public interest factors in determining a
§ 1404(a) venue transfer question: (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 conflicts of law or the application of foreign law. Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 315.
1. The Administrative Difficulties Flowing from Court Congestion
In considering this factor, the speed with which a case can come to trial and be resolved
may be relevant.

See Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 316; Gates Learjet Corp. v. Jenson,

743 F.2d 1325, 1337 (9th Cir. 1984) (“[T]he real issue is not whether [transfer] will reduce a
court’s congestion but whether a trial may be speedier in another court because of its less crowded
docket.”).
Defendant argues there would be no administrative difficulties by transferring to the
Northern District of Texas (Dkt. #8 at p. 11). Plaintiff counters that the less congested dockets in
the Southern District of Florida would allow for faster resolution of the dispute (Dkt. #12 at p. 8).
The most recent statistics obtained by the Court for the twelve-month period ending on
December 31, 2017, indicate that the median time from filing to trial in civil cases was 20.4 months
in the Eastern District of Texas, 22.8 months in the Northern District of Texas, and 15 months in
the Southern District of Florida, and the time from filing to disposition was 7.3 months, 6.8 months,

12

and 4.3 months respectively. 3 Thus, this factor is neutral as the case resolution speeds of the three
districts are similar.
2. The Local Interests in Having Localized Interests Decided at Home
The second public interest factor is the local interest in having localized interests decided
at home. Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 315. “Jury duty is a burden that ought not be imposed upon
the people of a community which has no relation to the litigation.” Affinity Labs of Tex. v. Samsung
Elecs. Co., 968 F. Supp. 2d 852, 855 (E.D. Tex. 2013) (citing Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 206).
Defendant argues that the Eastern District of Texas has no compelling local interest in this
action because there is “no nexus between the Plaintiff’s claim and the Eastern District”
(Dkt. #8 at p. 11). Defendant further contends that the compelling local interest is instead located
in the Northern District of Texas because the company’s principal place of business is located
there (Dkt. #8 at p. 11). Plaintiff counters that the compelling local interest is in the Southern
District of Florida because “there is a localized interest in Miami for the jurors to decide regarding
tenant background reports used to determine members of the community’s eligibility for housing”
(Dkt. #12 at p. 8).
The FCRA’s purpose is two-fold, on one hand, the statute seeks to protect consumers and,
on the other hand, to compel reporting agencies to “exercise their grave responsibilities with
fairness, impartiality and a respect for the consumer’s right[s]” by “adopting reasonable procedures
for meeting the needs of consumer credit . . . in a manner which is fair and equitable to the
consumer, [specifically] with regard to . . . accuracy.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681. This Court has an interest
in enforcing and furthering the statutory intent within its jurisdiction. Further, this Court also has

3

See Federal Court Management Statistics, December 2017,
http://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/data_tables/fcms_na_distcomparison1231.2017.pdf, accessed May 17,
2018.

13

an interest in this claim, albeit a less compelling one, as Defendant formerly had its principal place
of business within this district when the alleged non-compliance occurred (Dkt. #11 at ¶ 10).
However, this factor favors transfer to the Southern District of Florida, as it was the location of
Plaintiff’s harm.
3. Familiarity of the Forum with the Governing Law
Next, the Court considers whether the familiarity of the forum with the matter’s governing
law affects the transfer analysis. Both sides concede, and the Court agrees, that because this suit
is brought under the FCRA, a federal consumer protection law, there is no reason to think any
district court would be more or less familiar with the law (Dkt. #8 at p. 11; Dkt. #12 at p. 9).
See In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting federal courts are
equally capable of applying federal law). Thus, this factor is neutral.
4. The Avoidance of Unnecessary Problems of Conflict of Law
Finally, the Court considers whether transfer would cause or avoid unnecessary conflict of
law problems.

As discussed under the previous factor’s analysis, this action concerns the

application of the FCRA, a federal law, and does not involve any state substantive choice of law
issues.

Thus, as both parties correctly concede, this factor is neutral (Dkt. #8 at p. 11;

Dkt. #12 at p. 9).
Having considered all the factors, the Court finds that venue is proper in the Eastern District
of Texas, and that the parties have failed to show that transfer to either of the proposed forums
would be clearly more convenient than the current venue. Defendant has failed to meet the
significant burden to show good cause for the transfer as required under Volkswagen II. 545 F.3d
at 315 (holding that “when the transferee venue is not clearly more convenient than the venue
chosen by the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s choice should be respected.”).

14

.
CONCLUSION
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue, or
Alternatively, to Transfer Venue to the Northern District of Texas (Dkt. #8) is hereby DENIED.

SIGNED this 25th day of June, 2018.

___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15