Adame v. Refugio County

Filing 18

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER OF VENUE denying 4 Motion to Transfer Case.(Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(mserpa, 2)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
RICARDO ADAME,
Plaintiff,
VS.
REFUGIO COUNTY,
Defendant.

July 06, 2016
David J. Bradley, Clerk

§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-00139
§
§
§
§

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER OF VENUE
Plaintiff, Ricardo Adame, filed this action against Defendant Refugio County,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his termination from the Refugio County
Sheriff’s Office was motivated by discrimination based on national origin. Before the
Court is Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue to Victoria Division (D.E. 4). Plaintiff
has filed his Response (D.E. 12) and a Supplemental Response and affidavit (D.E. 15,
16). After reviewing the parties’ respective arguments, and for the reasons set out below,
the Court DENIES the motion.
Defendant seeks a divisional transfer of this action from the Corpus Christi
Division to the Victoria Division of the Southern District of Texas as the more
convenient forum. Defendant is Refugio County. It employed Plaintiff in Refugio
County. The events of this case transpired in Refugio County with, Defendant argues,
evidence and witnesses located there. And Plaintiff resides in Woodsboro, Refugio
County, Texas. Refugio County is within the geographic jurisdiction of the Victoria

1/4

Division. Defendant also suggests that administrative concerns regarding disparate case
loads of the respective courts favors transfer to the Victoria Division.
The issue of transfer of venue is committed to the sound discretion of this Court.
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); In re Volkswagen of America, Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 312 (5th Cir.
2008) (en banc) (“[W]e review only for clear abuses of discretion that produce patently
erroneous results.”). A court may transfer venue (1) for the convenience of parties and
witnesses, in the interests of justice, (2) to any other district or division where the action
might have been brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The burden of proof is on the movant to
show good cause for the proposed transfer. Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 314. According to
the Fifth Circuit:
This “good cause” burden reflects the appropriate deference
to which the plaintiff's choice of venue is entitled. When
viewed in the context of § 1404(a), to show good cause
means that a moving party, in order to support its claim for a
transfer, must satisfy the statutory requirements and clearly
demonstrate that a transfer is “[f]or the convenience of parties
and witnesses, in the interest of justice.” Thus, when the
transferee venue is not clearly more convenient than the
venue chosen by the plaintiff, the plaintiff's choice should be
respected. When the movant demonstrates that the transferee
venue is clearly more convenient, however, it has shown good
cause and the district court should therefore grant the transfer.
Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 315.
This action “might have been brought” in the Victoria Division of the Southern
District of Texas because the incident occurred within that Division’s geographic area.
Thus the second requirement for transfer of venue is satisfied. The first prong of the test
requires an analysis and weighing of several private and public interest factors that were
2/4

first set out as governing forum non conveniens determinations and which were later
applied to transfer of venue questions. Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947);
Humble Oil & Ref. Co. v. Bell Marine Serv., Inc., 321 F.2d 53, 56 (5th Cir. 1963).
The private interest 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 AG, 371 F.3d 201,
203 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 241 n. 6, 102 S.Ct. 252, 70 L.Ed.2d
419).
The public interest 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.
Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 315. Each factor will be discussed below. As the Fifth Circuit
observed, these factors “are not necessarily exhaustive or exclusive. Moreover, we have
noted that ‘none . . . can be said to be of dispositive weight.’” Id. (quoting Action Indus.,
Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Corp., 358 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir. 2004)).
Initially, it should be observed that Refugio County is, by practical standards, at
the half-way point between Corpus Christi and Victoria. Both courts’ subpoena power
would extend to Refugio County. With respect to the other private interest factors,
Defendant’s representations are conclusory, with no discussion of the location or needs of
specific witnesses or other evidence.
3/4

In contrast, Plaintiff has named the witnesses he expects to testify and has shown
that several are located in Corpus Christi or are closer to Corpus Christi than they are to
Victoria. While ground travel by the remaining witnesses would appear to be equal to
either venue, air travel for more distant witnesses would be easier to Corpus Christi
because neither Refugio nor Victoria have airports that accommodate regular commercial
flights. D.E. 12, 16. Thus, the private interest factors weigh in favor of retaining venue
in Corpus Christi.
This case does not involve any issue of conflict of laws or foreign law. This Court
and the Victoria Division are equally capable of interpreting the applicable law. While
this Court is burdened by a long-time judicial vacancy, resources of the Southern District
of Texas have been allocated in such a way that case administration is currently
unaffected. The local interest in having localized interests decided at home in this
employment discrimination case is insufficient to overcome the private interest factors
that weigh in favor of the Corpus Christi venue and Plaintiff’s choice of venue here.
For these reasons, Defendant Refugio County has failed to show good cause and
meet its burden to demonstrate that the Victoria Division is clearly more convenient than
the Corpus Christi Division. The Court DENIES the motion to transfer venue (D.E. 4).
ORDERED this 6th day of July, 2016.
___________________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4/4