Traylor v. MW Prince Hall Grand Lodge et al

Filing 16

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 2 Motion to Transfer Venue signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (PM)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

LONNIE RAY TRAYLOR,

10

Plaintiff,

13

ORDER

v.

11
12

CASE NO. C17-0815-JCC

MW PRINCE HALL GRAND
LODGE, and GREGORY D. WRAGGS,
SR.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to transfer venue (Dkt. No. 2).

17

Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral

18

argument unnecessary and hereby DENIES the motion for the reasons explained herein.

19

Plaintiff moves to transfer this case to the Tacoma division under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

20

Initially, the Court notes venue is proper here under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (2). The

21

complaint does not state where the discrimination took place, but Defendants and their meeting

22

hall are located in Seattle, thus it is reasonable to infer the alleged discrimination took place in

23

Seattle. (Dkt. No. 1 at 1.)

24

Plaintiff argues all of the evidence and witnesses with knowledge are located in Tacoma.

25

(Dkt. No. 2 at 4–5.) “Ease of access to evidence is generally not a predominate concern in

26

evaluating whether to transfer venue because ‘advances in technology have made it easy for

ORDER
PAGE - 1

1

documents to be transferred to different locations.’” Byler v. Deluxe Corp., 222 F. Supp. 3d 885,

2

906–07 (S.D. Cal. 2016) (quoting Metz v. U.S. Life Ins. Co. in City of New York, 674 F. Supp. 2d

3

1141, 1148 (C.D. Cal. 2009)). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s argument that it will be easier to access

4

the evidence is not persuasive. (Dkt. No. 2 at 4.)

5

Furthermore, “before a court will grant a plaintiff’s motion for a change of venue, he

6

must first show a change in circumstances since the filing of his suit.” James v. Daley & Lewis,

7

406 F. Supp. 645, 648–49 (D. Del. 1976). Since filing his lawsuit, Plaintiff has not demonstrated

8

any “change in circumstances” that would justify the Court exercising its discretion. (See Dkt.

9

No. 2.) It would be unfair to allow Plaintiff, after filling in this division, to select another forum,

10
11

forcing Defendants to scramble to follow him.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to transfer venue (Dkt. No. 2) is DENIED.

12
13

DATED this 14th day of July, 2017.

A

14
15
16

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER
PAGE - 2