Western Surety Company v. Marco Enterprises, Inc. et al

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM OPINION re 4 MOTION to Change Venue, the Motion is GRANTED. Thiscase is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Alexandria Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Signed by District Judge Rebecca Beach Smith and filed on 9/22/2011. (rsim)

UNITED

STATES DISTRICT

COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Norfolk Division

WESTERN

SURETY COMPANY,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL NO.

v.

MARCO

et

ENTERPRISES,

2:llcv408

INC.,

al.,
Defendants

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This
Venue

case

comes

the

United

to

District

of

defendants,

For the

before

Virginia,
Marco

reasons

States

Marco

Enterprises,

Fagon,

on

contracts
South
also

July

Inc.,
20,

performed

Dakota
located

by

South

Maryland

corporation,

Maryland.

Donna

P.

its

2011,

with

its

its

for

Transfer

the

Eastern

Donna

P.

of

the

Seaton-Fagon.

is GRANTED.

History

Company,

brought

president,
to

The

P.

a

Seaton-

plaintiff

place

place

against

construction

of

Enterprises,

principal
is

suit

Donna
three

principal

Marco

Seaton-Fagon

to

("Motion"),

Enterprises.

Dakota.

with

and

relating

Marco

corporation,
in

Surety

and

Motion

Court

the Motion

Procedural

Western

a

Division

Inc.,

forth herein,

plaintiff,

on

District

Enterprises,

set

court

Alexandria

I.

The

the

of

citizen

is

business

Inc.,

is

business
of

a

a

in

Maryland.

Diversity

jurisdiction

plaintiff
amount

is

in

The
court

part

occurred
fl

ECF

breached

1

two

its

or

that

§

1332,

as

the

and

the

of

the

this

because

underlying

the

Virginia.

relating

in

in

plaintiff

located

venue

1391,

omissions

The

in

§

defendants

U.S.C.

District

19.

located

the

complaint

28

events

one

U.S.C.

a

PL's
that

alleges

Am.
the

three

separate

Virginia

in

to

Beach,

Virginia,

District

of

Columbia.

See

id.

8.

The

August
ripe

defendants

17,

for

2011.

filed

The

their

Motion

is

The

defendants

1404 (a)

and

witnesses,

Local

in

action

have

whether

to

claims

Transfer

Venue

and

therefore

pursuant

to

is

on

now

might

the
have

been
grant

of
to

Motion
the

a

any

motion
two

brought

convenience

justice,
other

brought."

following
been

Analysis

"For

civil

might

conduct

3.

interest

where

must

to

unopposed,

their

the

any

deciding

bring
Rule

transfer

it

Motion

decision.
II.

§

from

contracts

projects,

other

in

Eastern

No.

28

$75,000.

under

the

within

5,

construction
the

of

under

diverse

alleged

appropriate

defendants

and

completely

plaintiff

substantial

Compl.

proper

controversy exceeds

is

claim

is

in

to

28

a

the

district

U.S.C.

transfer

§

court

or

"MD

this

may

In
court

whether

forum;

and

division

1404 (a).

venue,

transferee

U.S.C.

of parties

district

inquiries:

28

and

the
(2)

whether
and
v.

the

interest

witnesses
Lee,

482

Microtek
The

justify

F.

Supp.

Int'l,

of

Division

to

first

250
the

convenience

that

Supp.

2d

citing

Va.

the

the

action

the

provides

the

Va.

have

Koh

v.

2003)).
on

the

the Alexandria
the

However,

could

Inc.

largest
the

proper

been

court

first place.

in

3 (C)

of
and

suit.

Tax,

argument

proximity

parties

(quoting

(E.D.

their

counsel,

underlying

Division

630

the

JTH

2007)

627,
of

the

of

forum.'"

(E.D.

entirety

whether

Rule

to

witnesses,

project

the Alexandria

and

735

F.

criteria,

assess

Local

731,

likely

construction

must

2d

spend

these

justice

transfer

Inc.,

defendants

second

of

brought

basis

for

in

this

determination:

Civil

actions

district
well.
also

The
an

the

venue

shall

venue

as

A

reads

civil

to

action

wherein

28

in

§

§

et

as

seq.
in

purpose

of

to

lay

1391

"judicial

the

this

division

the

which

terms

U.S.C.

1391

proper

U.S.C.

replaced with

3 (C)

§

For

in

division,

venue,

et

seq.

district"

term "division."

1391 (a),

the

applicable

follows:

diversity

in

the

28

the

proper

U.S.C.

filed.

in

if

as

of

provided
where

28

division

stated

Rule

proper

in
be

proper

were

is

the

determine

construed

be

Local

rule

to

rules

and "district"
Applying

rules
shall

the

venue

in

brought

apply

action

determining

which

be

venue

shall

which

for

shall

by

any

the

citizenship

law,

be

defendant

same

part

rise

claim

the

property

that

situated,

or

of

(2)
the

a

the

is

founded

except

only
if

a

in

all

or

or
a

subject

[division]

in

otherwise
[division]

defendants
in

the
any

reside

which

omissions

which

on

a

substantial

of

only

as

(1)

[division]

events

occurred,

is
(3)

may,

brought
resides,

State,

substantial
to

jurisdiction

a

giving
part

action

of

is

defendant

is

subject

action

action may

transfer

both

Info.
at

statute,

districts

adjusted

Services,

under

28

to

Alexandria

Apr.

is

clear

proper

not

defendants

Fagon

is

Defs.'

no

a

28

to

the

or

Alexandria
service

the

corporation
jurisdiction

Equifax
24650,
3(C)

non-diversity

28

Rule

case

not

instance,

1391(a)(l),

Venue

1,

pleadings
rise
The
the

as

it

ECF

Defs.'

No.

that

"a

to

the

appears
and,
it

action

may
from

is
is

in

Supp.
there

issue

the

of

subject

commenced.

of
are

the

within

concerned

Beach

and

within

pleadings

USC

the

Seaton-

part

reside
28

venue

occurred"

Virginia

under

P.

Second,

at

the

because

substantial

in

Inc.,

First,

Donna

claim

in

to

therefore,

Mem.

5.

contracts

division,

anywhere
the

Virginia;

See

lie

and,

§

within

1391(a)

properly

U.S.C.

Maryland.1

time

§

unavailable.

Alexandria

resides
the

first

Enterprises,

in

did

U.S.C.

is

outside

Division,

at

be

v.

Local

1404(a)

giving

Marco

venue

the

Division.

occurred

to

LEXIS

Dist.

a

of

version

reside

of

omissions

Defendant

U.S.

in

need

Mullins

(construing

venue

references

not

28

both

in

located

in

§

Transfer

Alexandria

projects

in

under

citizen

Mot.

the

does

Cf.

2006

2006)

that

U.S.C.

not

indications

events

1

do

the

already

therefore
3(C).

proper

time

[division]

1404(a),

3:05CV888,

substituted

Division,

under

§

Rule

at

no

be brought.

and

28,

is

1391(b)).

is

transfer

U.S.C.

No.

this

it

otherwise

Local

determine

Applying

case,

to

§

there

divisions,

Va.

U.S.C.

jurisdiction

if

28

LLC,

(E.D.

similarly

this

and

pursuant

*9-*13

personal

commenced,

which the

The

to

is

§
to

the

the
that

1391(c),

a

personal

District

of

additional

Columbia,

concerned

Norfolk

Division,

venue.

The

a

U.S.C.

§

1404(a)

U.S.C.

§ 1404 (b)

Mullins

Equifax
*14

motion to

Defs.'

2 Section 1404(b)
motion,

any

motion

division

within
is

in

a

the

proper

which

transfer

However,

any

underlying

Beach,

therefore,

to Transfer Venue

Services,

that

consent
suit

or

the
§

or

or

LLC,

this

under

transfer

1404(b)

1,

28

under

ECF No.

2006

U.S.

of

opposition

another

28

4;

Dist.

cf.

LEXIS

party

to

a

inapplicable).

pending

of

stipulation

proceeding

hearing

discretion

which

three

Division

a

provide

states:

action,

the

Mot.

Info.

(noting

any

not

improper.

transfer venue made

Upon

the

Virginia

is

that

is proper, 2 as all of the parties agree to the

See

at

be

of

Norfolk

brought,"

would

alleged

One

in

the

Division

been

transfer.3
v.

thus

are

id.

project

and

have

facts

See

Alexandria

"might

24650,

no

connections.

contracts

case

and

thereof,

the

other

may

court,

any

to

of

a
be

from

of

all

civil

parties,
nature

or

transferred,

in

the

division

division
in

the

in

same

district.
Thus,

suit

under

could

§

1404(b),

have

been

the

defendants

brought

in

the

would

not

transferee

need

to

show

the

division.

3 The court is perplexed as to why the defendants did not seek
transfer
this

case

under
does

28
not

U.S.C.
oppose

§

1404(b),
transfer.

given

that

the plaintiff

in

For
case

the

is

United

foregoing

hereby

TRANSFERRED

States

Virginia.

District

The

Memorandum

Clerk

Order

to

transfer of the case
It

is

SO

reasons,
to

Court
is

counsel

the
the

Motion

Alexandria

for

DIRECTED
for

is

the

to the Alexandria

the
to

GRANTED.
Division

Eastern
send

parties

a

of

the

District

of

copy

and

This

to

of

effect

this
the

Division.

ORDERED.

^

Rebecca Beach Smith

United States District Judge
Rebecca

Beach

Smith

United StatesDistrict
Norfolk,

September

Virginia

^& <

2011

Judge