Taylor v. Amvest West Virginia Coal, L.L.C. et al
Filing
19
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO TRANSFER 18 PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr on 4/23/2012. (Copy counsel of record via CM/ECF and Clerk USDC SDWV).(jmm)[Transferred from West Virginia Northern on 4/23/2012.]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
JAMES F. TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 1:11CV162
(STAMP)
AMVEST WEST VIRGINIA COAL, L.L.C.,
and CONSOL ENERGY INC.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO TRANSFER
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404
I.
Background
On September 9, 2011, the plaintiff commenced this civil
action by filing a complaint in the Circuit Court of Marion County,
West Virginia.
The complaint sets forth a claim for violation of
the Family and Medical Leave Act and a claim for wrongful discharge
in violation of the public policy of West Virginia.
The case was
removed to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia at Clarksburg on October 13, 2011.
Subsequently, the case was reassigned to the undersigned judge, who
entered a scheduling order on November 29, 2011.1
On April 19, 2012, the parties filed a joint motion to
transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404. The parties state that they
have exchanged written discovery, but no further activity has
1
In their joint motion to transfer, the parties state that the
trial of this action is presently scheduled to occur in Wheeling,
West Virginia.
However, according to the November 29, 2011
scheduling order, the trial in this action is presently scheduled
to be held in Clarksburg, West Virginia.
occurred.
They seek to transfer this action to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia because
the Southern District will be a more convenient venue for the
parties and the witnesses.
II.
Applicable Law
Title 28, United States Code, Section 1404(a) provides, in
pertinent part:
For the convenience of 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).
The United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit has held that a motion to transfer an action under
§ 1404 is within the sound discretion of the district court. Akers
v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 378 F.2d 78, 81 (4th Cir. 1967).
When
resolving a motion to transfer, district courts often consider the
following factors:
(1) ease of access to sources of proof; (2) the
convenience of parties and witnesses; (3) the cost of
obtaining the attendance of witnesses; (4) the
availability of compulsory process; (5) the possibility
of a view; (6) the interest in having local controversies
decided at home; and (7) the interests of justice.
Vass v. Volvo Trucks N. Am., Inc., 304 F. Supp. 2d 851, 857 (S.D.
W. Va. 2004) (quoting AFA Enterprises, Inc. v. Am. States Ins. Co.,
842 F. Supp. 902, 909 (S.D. W. Va. 1994)).
III.
Discussion
In this case, each of the factors described above weighs in
favor of transferring this action to the United States District
2
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. According to the
parties, a majority of the witnesses in this case reside in the
Southern District, which means that the cost of obtaining the
attendance of the witnesses will be reduced if this matter is
transferred.
In addition, the parties argue that the availability
of compulsory process is increased if this matter is transferred to
the Southern District.
The parties state that it is unlikely that
a jury view will occur since this is an employment discrimination
case. Further, the parties claim that the interest in having local
controversies decided at home weighs in favor of the Southern
District because the plaintiff worked in the Southern District.2
Finally, the parties contend that the interests of justice weigh in
favor of transferring this case inasmuch as all the parties request
that this case be transferred.
IV.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the joint motion to transfer
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit a copy of this memorandum
opinion and order to counsel of record herein and to the Clerk of
the United States District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia.
2
The plaintiff was employed at Fola Coal Company, LLC, which
operates coal mines in Clay County, West Virginia.
3
DATED:
April 23, 2012
/s/ Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.
FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?