Gibb v. Cox Media, LLC et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by District Judge James R. Spencer on 11/8/10. (lsal)

ANNEF.GIBB,

UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT EASTERNDISTRICTOFVIRGINIA RICHMONDDIVISION ActionNo.3:10­CV­656

Plaintiff, v. COXMEDIA,LLC, COXCOMMUNICATIONSHAMPTON ROADS,LLC, Defendants.

MEMORANDUMOPINION THISMATTERisbeforetheCourtonDefendants'MotiontoTransferDivisional

Venue.(Doc.No.3.)DefendantsmovetheCourttotransferthismattertotheNewport NewsDivisionoftheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheEasternDistrictofVirginia. Plaintiffopposesatransfer.Forthereasonsstatedbelow,Defendants'MotionisHEREBY GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND PlaintiffGibbisaformeremployeeofDefendantsCoxMedia,LLCandCox CommunicationsHamptonRoads,LLC(collectively"Cox").Plaintifffiledalawsuitagainst DefendantsintheCircuitCourtfortheCityofRichmondallegingviolationsofthe AmericanswithDisabilitiesActandFamilyandMedicalLeaveAct.Defendantsremoved. II. LEGALSTANDARD Under28U.S.C.§1391(b),acivilactionmaybebroughtin:"(1)ajudicialdistrict

whereanydefendantresides,ifalldefendantsresideinthesameState,(2)ajudicial districtinwhichasubstantialpartoftheeventsoromissionsgivingrisetotheclaim
1

occurred,orasubstantialpartofpropertythatisthesubjectoftheactionissituated,or(3) ajudicialdistrictinwhichanydefendantmaybefound,ifthereisnodistrictinwhichthe actionmayotherwisebebrought." LocalCivilRule3setsforththerequirementsfordivisionalvenuewithintheEastern DistrictofVirginia.TheRuleprovidesthat"[c]ivilactionsforwhichvenueisproperinthis districtshallbebroughtintheproperdivision,aswell."LocalCiv.R.3(C).TheRulefurther providesthat,"[f]orthepurposeofdeterminingtheproperdivisioninwhichtolayvenue, thevenuerulesstatedin28U.S.C.§1391etseq.shallbeconstruedasiftheterms`judicial district'and`district'werereplacedwiththeterm`division.'"Id.Thus,venueisproperin theEasternDistrictofVirginiainadivisionwhere:(1)adefendantresides,ifalldefendants resideinVirginia;(2)asubstantialpartoftheallegedactsoromissionsgivingrisetothe claimoccurred;or(3)thedefendantcanbefoundifthereisnootherdivisionwherethe actioncanbebrought. Adistrictcourtmay,initsdiscretion,transferacaseuponmotion,"fromthedivision inwhich[itis]pendingtoanyotherdivisioninthesamedistrict."28U.S.C§1404(b). III. DISCUSSION a. VenueisProperintheNewportNewsDivisionPursuantto28U.S.C.§ 1391(b)andLocalCivilRule3 DefendantsarguethatthismattershouldbeheardintheNewportNewsDivisionof thisCourtinsteadoftheRichmondDivision.DefendantspointoutthatPlaintiffallegesin herComplaintthatherplaceofemploymentwasinNewportNewsandthattherelevant actsandomissionshappenedintheworkplace.Assuch,Defendantsassertthatboth28 U.S.C§1391(b)andLocalCivilRule3(C)requirethatvenuelieinNewportNews.

2

PlaintiffarguesvenueisproperintheRichmondDivision.Plaintiff'sjustificationis

thatDefendantsremovedtheaction,andcaselawholdsthatwhenanactionisremovedto aparticularcourt,venueonlyliesinthatcourtpursuantto28U.S.C§1441(a).Plaintiffcites Polizziv.CowlesMagazines,Inc.,345U.S.663,665(1953),forthepropositionthat,aftera caseisremoved,venueliesinthatcourtpursuantto28U.S.C§1441(a).Plaintiffinterprets theCourt'sholdingthat28U.S.C§1391had"noapplicationto"thatcasebecauseitwas removedtomeanthatacasecannotbetransferredafteritisremoved.Seeid.Thus, Plaintiffmaintains28U.S.C.§1391isnotapplicabletotheinstantcase. 28U.S.C.§1441,thegeneralremovalstatute,provides [e]xcept as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil actionbroughtinaStatecourtofwhichthedistrictcourtsoftheUnited States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district anddivisionembracingtheplacewheresuchactionispending. 28U.S.C§1441(a).WhilePlaintiffinterpretsthisstatutetomeanacasecannotbe transferredafterbeingremoved,Defendantsarguethatallthestatutedoesisidentifythe courttowhichremovalmustbemadeinthefirstinstance.Defendantsmaintainthatthe statutedoesnotpreventatransferafterremoval.SeeHeftv.AAICorp.,355F.Supp.2d757, 77273(M.D.Pa.2005)("[t]hatanactionmustberemovedtothe`districtanddivision embracingtheplacewheresuchactionispending,'28U.S.C.§1441(a),doesnotsuggest thatthecasecannotthereafterbetransferredtoanotherdistrictoranotherdivision....An actionmayberemovedtoonlyoneforumbutitmaythereafterbetransferredtoanyvenue permittedbyfederallaw.").SeealsoBHPInt'lInv.,Inc.v.OnLineExch.,Inc.,105F.Supp.2d 493(E.D.Va.2000)(grantingmotiontotransfervenueinacasethathadbeenremoved).

3

Thus,removalwasproperonlytotheRichmondDivision,butthereisnothingthat preventsthecasefrombeingtransferredtotheNewportNewsDivision. TheCourtfindsthatthiscasemaybetransferred,despitehavingbeenremovedto

thisCourt.ThequestionbeforetheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStatesinPolizziwas whetherthedistrictcourthadcorrectlydismissedacaseforwantofjurisdictionafter lookingtothegeneralvenuestatuteinacasethathadbeenremoved.Polizzi,345U.S.at 665.TheCourtheldthatthetrialcourterredinlookingatthegeneralvenuestatute,28 U.S.C.§1391,todetermineifthecourthadjurisdiction,andthatthetrialcourtshouldhave lookedtothegeneralremovalstatute,28U.S.C.§1441,instead.Id.NothinginPolizzi suggestsacasecannotbetransferredafterbeingproperlyremoved. b. TransfertotheNewportNewsDivisionisAppropriateUnder28U.S.C.§ 1404 Defendantsassertthat28U.S.C.§1404alsoprovidesabasisfortransferringthis

casetotheNewportNewsDivisionofthisCourt.Thisstatuteallowsacourttotransfera casetoanotherdivisionwherethecasecouldhavebeenbrought"[f]ortheconvenienceof partiesandwitnesses,intheinterestofjustice."28U.S.C.§1404(a)."[28U.S.C.]§1404 applieswherejurisdictionandvenueinthecurrentforumareproper...butwhereaparty claimsthatanothervenuewouldbemoreconvenient."Terryv.Walker,369F.Supp.2d 818,821(W.D.Va.2005). Thetrialcourthasdiscretiontodecidewhethertotransferacase.Id.Insodeciding, courtsmustconsider: (1)easeofaccesstosourcesofproof;(2)theconvenienceoftheparties andwitnesses;(3)thecostofobtainingtheattendanceofwitnesses;(4) the availability of compulsory process; (5) the interest in having local

4

controversies decided at home; (6) in diversity cases, the court's familiaritywiththeapplicablelaw;and[(7)]theinterestofjustice. BHPInt'lInv.,Inc.,105F.Supp.2dat498.Acourtmusttypicallygivesubstantialweightto theplaintiff'schoiceofforum,andthedefendantmustprove"convenienceandjusticeare stronglyinfavoroftransfertoanotherforum."Terry,369F.Supp.2dat822.If,however,"a plaintiffchoosesaforeignforumandthecauseofactionbearslittleornorelationtothat forum,theplaintiff'schosenvenueisnotentitledtosuchsubstantialweight."VerosolB.V. v.HunterDouglas,Inc.,806F.Supp.582,592(E.D.Va.1992). Defendantsassertthatthemostimportantfactorstoconsiderare"plaintiff'schoice offorum,witnessconvenience,accesstosourcesofproof,partyconvenience,andthe interestofjustice,"Mullinsv.EquifaxInfo.Servs.,LLC,2006U.S.Dist.LEXIS24650,*16 (E.D.Va.Apr.28,2006),andthateachofthesefactorscounselsinfavorofatransfer. First,DefendantsarguethatPlaintiff'schoiceofforumcounselsinfavorofatransfer becausePlaintiff'ssoleconnectiontoRichmondisthatshenowlivesinthecity,having movedbeforefilingthisaction.Defendantsassertthat,becausePlaintiff'sclaimshavelittle nexuswiththeRichmondDivision,thisfactorweighsinfavoroftransferringthecase. Defendantsnextassertthatwitnessconveniencecounselsinfavorofatransfer.All factwitnessesarelikelytobelocatedinNewportNews,asthatiswherePlaintiffworked andwherehercausesofactionarose.Atmost,therewillbeexpertwitnesseswhoare locatedinRichmond.Becauseexpertsaretypicallycompensatedfortheirtime,however, Defendantsarguethattheyshouldnotbeconsideredinthe§1404analysis. Defendantsassertthatthethirdimportantfactor,accesstosourcesofproof, counselsinfavorofatransferbecausemost,ifnotall,relevantrecordswerepreparedand

5

aremaintainedinCox'sNewportNewsoffice.CoxdoesnotmaintainanofficeinRichmond nordoesitconductanyofitstelecommunicationsbusinessintheRichmondarea. The"conveniencetoparties"factoralsocounselsinfavorofatransfer.BecauseCox doesnothaveanofficeoranybusinessintheRichmondDivision,litigatingthiscasein RichmondposesaninconveniencetoDefendants.Furthermore,allofthefactwitnessesare likelytobeCoxemployeeswholiveinNewportNewsandwouldhavetotravelto Richmondfordiscoveryandtrial.Defendantsarguethattheburdenonthemoutweighs theburdenonPlaintiffbecausePlaintiffhascounselbasedinNewportNewsand,ifthe matteristransferredtoNewportNews,DefendantswouldbewillingtodeposePlaintiffand anyRichmondbasedwitnessesinRichmond. Finally,Defendantsassertthattheinterestofjusticedictatesthatthiscasebe transferred.Defendantsarguethattheinterestinhavinglocalcontroversiesdecidedlocally requiresthecasetobeheardinNewportNews.Furthermore,thereisnoquestionthatthe eventscentraltothiscaseoccurredinNewportNewsandthatPlaintiffwasaNewport Newsresidentwhenhercausesofactionarose.Finally,withoutatransfer,Richmond'sjury poolwouldhavetodecideacasethataroseinNewportNews,whichistimeconsumingand inconvenientforthem. PlaintiffurgestheCourttodenyatransferandallowtheactiontoproceedinthe RichmondDivisionbecauseshelivesandhassubstantialcontactsintheRichmondarea. Plaintiff'sbrother,withwhomshelives,residesinChester,Virginia.Plaintiffdepends heavilyonherbrotherandhisfamilyforemotionalsupportandtransportation.Plaintiff alsostatesthatNeedle'sEyeMinistries,Inc.islocatedinRichmond.Plaintiffexplainsthat theorganizationhasbeenacriticalsourceofsupportforhersinceshewasterminated

6

fromCoxandthatemployeesoftheorganizationhavewitnessedtheeffecthertermination hashadonher.TheorganizationalsohelpsPlaintiffpayrent. Plaintiffstatesinheraffidavitthatherpsychiatrist,psychologist,andpulmonologist, allofwhomsheanticipatescallingaswitnessesattrial,workinRichmond.Plaintiff's primarycarephysician,whomaybecalledasawitness,isalsoinRichmond.Plaintiff furtherstatesthatshefiledforbankruptcyinApril2010inRichmond,andthatsherelied onherlawyertofigureoutwheresheshouldfilethepetition.Finally,Plaintiffstatesthat sheisseekingemploymentinRichmondandisconfidentshewillfindajobwithinthenext fewweeks.Inlightofherhealthissues,thelocationofherdoctors,hercurrentresidence, andanticipatedplaceofemployment,PlaintiffrequeststhattheCourtnottransferthecase becauselitigatinginRichmondismoreconvenientforherthananyotherlocation. Becausethefactorstobeconsideredindeterminingwhetheracaseshouldbe transferredpursuantto28U.S.C.§1404counselinfavorofatransfer,theCourtfindsthata transfertotheNewportNewsDivisionisappropriate. IV. CONCLUSION BecausethecaselawdoesnotsupportPlaintiff'sclaimthatacasecannotbe transferredafteritisremoved;venuedoesnotlieintheRichmondDivisiononthefactsof thiscase;andmost,ifnotall,ofthefactorstobeconsideredindeterminingwhetherto transferpursuantto§1404counselinfavorofatransfer,theCourtGRANTSDefendants' MotiontoTransfer.

7

LettheClerksendacopyofthisMemorandumOpiniontoallcounselofrecord. AnappropriateOrdershallissue.

______________________/s/____________________ JamesR.Spencer ChiefUnitedStatesDistrictJudge ENTEREDthis8thdayofNovember2010

8