Admiral Valve, LLC v. Western Valve, Inc

Filing 19

Memorandum Opinion and Order... The court ORDERS that defendants' motion to transfer venue be, and is hereby, denied. (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 7/19/2018) (wxc)

. . I TRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FILED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT OURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
ADMIRAL VALVE, LLC,
D/B/A CPV MANUFACTURING,

§

JUL 1Cj ?018

C'B~RK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

§

Depu

§

Plaintiff,

§
§

VS.

§

NO. 4:18-CV-347-A

§

WESTERN VALVE,

INC.,

§
§

Defendant.

§

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Came on for consideration the motion of defendants, Western
Valve,

Inc., and Western Sales & Testing of Amarillo Inc., to

transfer venue. The court, having considered the motion, the
response of plaintiff, Admiral Valve, LLC,
applicable authorities,

the record, and

finds that the motion should be denied.
I.
Plaintiff's Claims

On May 8, 2018, plaintiff filed its original complaint,
Doc. 1 1, and, on June 12, 2018, its amended complaint in this
action. Doc. 11. Plaintiff sues defendants under the Lanham Act,
15 U.S.C.

§§

1051-1141n, and Texas law for trademark infringement

and unfair competition. Plaintiff says that defendants have
manufactured, marketed, packaged and sold valves and fittings
marked with plaintiff's trademark and tradename.

'The "Doc.

"reference is to the number of the item on the docket in this action.

II.
Ground of the Motion
Defendants say that venue is inconvenient for them in this
district and urge that the action should be transferred to the
Amarillo Division of this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§

1404(a).

III.
Applicable Legal Principles
The pertinent statute provides:
For the convenience of the 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). Whether a motion to transfer venue should be

§

granted lies within the court's sound discretion. Time,
Manning,

366 F.2d 690,

698

Inc. v.

(5th Cir. 1966).

The court considers both public and private factors in
determining whether a transfer should be ordered. The private
interest factors are:
of proof;

(2)

(1) the relative ease of access to sources

the availability of compulsory process to secure

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

factors are:

(5th Cir. 2008). The public interest

(1) the administrative difficulties flowing from
2

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 application of
foreign law. Id.
The burden rests on the moving party to show that the
initial choice of forum should be disturbed. TIG Ins. Co. v.
NAFCO Ins. Co., Ltd., 177 F. Supp. 2d 561, 568

(N.D. Tex. 2001)

The moving party must make a particularized showing why transfer
is necessary and the court may not transfer a case where the
result is merely to shift the inconvenience of venue from one
party to the other. Id.; Sanders v. State St. Bank & Tr. Co., 813
F. Supp. 529, 535 (S.D. Tex. 1993).
IV.

Analysis
Having considered each of the factors pertinent to an
assessment of a request to transfer venue, the court is not
persuaded that the motion should be granted. As plaintiff notes,
defendants' declarations fall far short of establishing that
going to trial here will be unduly burdensome. The declaration of
defendants' president only addresses sources of proof and then
only •to the best of [his] knowledge." Doc. 16, ' ' 8, 11. The
other private factors are left to speculation, but there is no

3

reason to believe that Amarillo would be a better venue for
witnesses from Houston (where the alleged infringing products
were sold) or Pennsylvania (where plaintiff has its principal
place of business) than would Fort Worth. As a practical matter,
Fort Worth is a more central location and easily accessible from
more than one airport. As for the public interest factors,

the

declaration of defendants' counsel highlights that there really
are not significant cost savings to be achieved by venue in
Amarillo. Court congestion, familiarity with the law, and
avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws are not
factors in this case.
One of the cases defendants cite in support of their motion
aptly describes the folly of maintaining that transfer is
appropriate here. Doc. 15 at 2. In Bevil v. Smit Americas,

Inc.,

the court quoted the Fifth Circuit regarding inconvenience:
This case is not being consigned to the wastelands of
Siberia or some remote, distant area of the continental
United States. The minor inconvenience [movant) may
suffer in having to litigate this case in Tyler--only
203 miles distant--rather than in Houston, can in no
rational way support the notion of abuse of discretion.
883 F. Supp. 168, 170-71 (S.D. Tex. 1995) (quoting Jarvis
Christian College v. Exxon Corp., 845 F.2d 523, 528 (5th Cir.
1988)). Substitute Fort Worth and Amarillo for Tyler and Houston
and a distance of 339 miles and the result is the same.

4

v.
Order
The court ORDERS that defendants' motion to transfer venue
be, and is hereby, denied.
SIGNED July 19, 2018.

Judge

5