Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_06-cv-00825/USCOURTS-alsd-2_06-cv-00825-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent Infringement

---

1 Marion, Alabama is the county seat of Perry County, Alabama, which lies within

the Northern Division. See 28 U.S.C. § 81(c). Plaintiff’s residence in the Northern Division is

reinforced by the Civil Cover Sheet accompanying the Complaint, wherein Bartronics

represented that its county of residence is Perry County, Alabama.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

BARTRONICS, INC., )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 06-0825-WS-M

 )

POWER-ONE, INC., et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on defendants’ Request for Reconsideration of Order

Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Trial Setting in Selma, Alabama (doc. 23).

On December 4, 2006, plaintiff Bartronics, Inc. initiated this patent infringement lawsuit

by filing its Complaint (doc. 1) against defendants Power-One, Inc. and Magnatek, Inc. in this

District Court. By statute, the Southern District of Alabama comprises a Northern Division

(comprising the counties of Dallas, Hale, Marengo, Perry, and Wilcox) and a Southern Division

(comprising the counties of Baldwin, Choctaw, Clarke, Conecuh, Escambia, Mobile, Monroe,

and Washington). See 28 U.S.C. § 81(c). Court for the Northern Division is held at Selma,

while court for the Southern Division is held at Mobile. Id. The Complaint (doc. 1) designated

this action as being filed in the Northern Division, and apparently justified that designation by

alleging that plaintiff Bartronics has its principal place of business in Marion, Alabama, in the

Northern Division. (Complaint, ¶ 1.)1

This District Court’s general practice is to set trials for Northern Division civil cases in

Selma, Alabama. See Local Rule 3.1(a) (“Court for the Northern Division shall be held in

Case 2:06-cv-00825-WS-M Document 29 Filed 05/04/07 Page 1 of 5
2 This practice is bolstered by the Congressional admonition that “[a] district court

may order any civil action to be tried at any place within the division in which it is pending.” 28

U.S.C. § 1404(c). Bartronics’ Complaint having been filed in the Northern Division, this action

is pending in the Northern Division and should be tried in that division, absent an appropriate

basis for transferring venue.

3 That section provides as follows: “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

-2-

Selma, unless otherwise ordered by the court.”).2 For that reason, the presumption is that this

Northern Division case will be tried in Selma, rather than in Mobile. Because of a clerical error,

however, the initial Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order (doc. 16) entered on April 2, 2007 set this case

for trial in Mobile. When plaintiff promptly pointed out the oversight via its Motion for Trial

Setting in Selma, Alabama (doc. 21), an Amended Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order (doc. 22) was

entered to reflect a trial location in Selma, which is right and proper for this Northern Division

case.

On April 7, 2007, the very next day after entry of the Amended Scheduling Order,

defendants filed a Request for Reconsideration, asserting the following grounds for its request

that the trial be reset for Mobile: (a) defendants have identified various witnesses who will travel

by air from Europe or other parts of the United States to participate in the trial, and “Mobile is

far better equipped to accommodate the international and transcontinental travel of these

witnesses than Selma” (doc. 23, at 1-2); (b) defendants’ in-state and out-of-state counsel will

need to travel by air to the trial, and a Mobile trial location will be far more convenient than a

Selma trial location in that regard; (c) plaintiffs’ out-of-state counsel will need to travel by air to

the trial, and a Mobile venue will again be more convenient in that effort; (d) no hardship will be

created for the one witnesses identified by plaintiff’s initial disclosures to travel from that

witness’s residence in the Northern Division to a trial in Mobile; and (e) defendants neither

consented to moving the trial to Selma, nor were given a reasonable opportunity to oppose

plaintiff’s request to change the trial setting to Selma.

Defendants do not argue that venue for this action does not properly lie in the Northern

Division; therefore, defendants’ request for reconsideration is properly construed as a motion to

transfer venue for the convenience of parties and witnesses, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).3

Case 2:06-cv-00825-WS-M Document 29 Filed 05/04/07 Page 2 of 5
division where it might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). By contrast, had defendants

postured their objection as being that venue is improper in the Northern Division of Alabama,

then their request would instead be analyzed through the lens of 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), which

allows for the dismissal or transfer of cases that lay venue in the wrong division or district. 

Section 1406(a) is not implicated by defendants’ motion and therefore will not be considered.

4 This principle has been echoed by myriad district courts examining § 1404(a)

motions. See, e.g., Thermal Technologies, Inc. v. Dade Service Corp., 282 F. Supp.2d 1373,

1375 (S.D. Fla. 2003) (“Initially, Plaintiffs' choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.”); A.J.

Taft, 291 F. Supp.2d at 1309 (“in this Circuit, a plaintiff’s choice of forum typically is entitled to

considerable deference”); Lasalle Bank, 274 F. Supp.2d at 1301 (“Courts will accord great

deference to the plaintiff’s choice of forum if the forum is in the district in which it resides.”);

Holmes v. Freightliner, LLC, 237 F. Supp.2d 690, 693 (M.D. Ala. 2002) (“[T]he weight to be

given the plaintiff’s forum choice is significant and will not be disturbed unless the other factors

weigh substantially in favor of transfer.”) (citation omitted); E.E.O.C. v. Mustang Mobile

Homes, Inc., 88 F. Supp.2d 722, 726 (W.D. Tex. 1999) (“In general, a plaintiff's choice of forum

is entitled to great weight.”); Insuracorp, Inc. v. American Fidelity Assur. Co., 914 F. Supp. 504,

-3-

By its terms, § 1404(a) provides that an action may be transferred to another division

“[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.” Id. When determining

whether the balance of justice and convenience favors transfer, courts “generally consider the

following factors: the plaintiff's initial choice of forum; the convenience of the parties; the

convenience of the witnesses; the relative ease of access to sources of proof; the availability of

compulsory process for witnesses; the location of relevant documents; the financial ability to

bear the cost of the change; and trial efficiency.” Lasalle Bank N.A. v. Mobile Hotel Properties,

LLC, 274 F. Supp.2d 1293, 1301 (S.D. Ala. 2003) (citation omitted); see also C.M.B. Foods, Inc.

v. Corral of Middle Georgia, 396 F. Supp.2d 1283, 1286-87 (M.D. Ala. 2005) (same). “The

decision of whether a case should be transferred under § 1404(a) is an individualized case-bycase consideration of convenience and fairness.” A.J. Taft Coal Co. v. Barnhart, 291 F. Supp.2d

1290, 1307 (N.D. Ala. 2003) (citations omitted); Lasalle Bank, 274 F. Supp.2d at 1301 (similar).

Notwithstanding the foregoing laundry list of factors, however, a plaintiff’s choice of

forum should be honored so long as venue is proper there, unless substantial countervailing

considerations militate to the contrary. See Robinson v. Giarmarco & Bill, P.C., 74 F.3d 253,

260 (11th Cir. 1996) (“The plaintiff's choice of forum should not be disturbed unless it is clearly

outweighed by other considerations.”).4 “[I]n the usual motion for transfer under section

Case 2:06-cv-00825-WS-M Document 29 Filed 05/04/07 Page 3 of 5
505 (M.D. Ala. 1996) (“Under normal circumstances, federal courts will accord great deference

to the plaintiff’s choice of forum if the forum is in the district in which he or she resides.”).

-4-

1404(a), the burden is on the movant to establish that the suggested forum is more convenient.” 

In re Ricoh Corp., 870 F.2d 570, 573 (11th Cir. 1989); Holmes v. Freightliner, LLC, 237 F.

Supp.2d 690, 692-93 (M.D. Ala. 2002) (observing that, under § 1404(a) analysis, plaintiff’s

selected forum is presumptively correct, and defendant bears burden of demonstrating that

suggested forum is more convenient).

In seeking to justify a transfer of venue from the Northern Division to the Southern

Division in this case, defendants cite only the convenience of witnesses (in that it is purportedly

easier for out-of-town witnesses to fly to Mobile than it is for them to fly to Selma) and the

convenience of counsel. The latter factor is emphatically not a proper consideration in the §

1404(a) transfer analysis. See, e.g., In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 206 (5th Cir. 2004)

(“The word ‘counsel’ does not appear anywhere in § 1404(a), and the convenience of counsel is

not a factor to be assessed in determining whether to transfer a case under § 1404(a).”); Solomon

v. Continental Am. Life Ins. Co., 472 F.2d 1043, 1047 (3rd Cir. 1973) (“The convenience of

counsel is not a factor to be considered.”); Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 472

F. Supp.2d 1183, 1196 (S.D. Cal. 2007) (convenience of counsel deemed “irrelevant” to §

1404(a) analysis); Original Creatine Patent Co. v. Met-Rx USA, Inc., 387 F. Supp.2d 564, 571

(E.D. Va. 2005) (“no consideration is given to the convenience of counsel” in motion for

discretionary transfer of venue).

By contrast, the former factor cited by defendants – convenience of the witnesses – is a

proper and important consideration in the § 1404(a) calculus. Indeed, courts have recognized

that, aside from the plaintiff’s own choice of forum, “[t]he most important factor in passing on a

motion to transfer under § 1404(a) is the convenience of the witnesses.” Insuracorp, Inc. v.

American Fidelity Assur. Co., 914 F. Supp. 504, 506 (M.D. Ala. 1996); see also Lasalle Bank,

274 F. Supp.2d at 1302 (“The most important factor is the convenience of the witnesses.”). But

defendants have failed to make an adequate showing that a Southern Division venue will be

materially more convenient for the witnesses than a Northern Division venue. The one witness

named in plaintiff’s initial disclosures resides in the Northern Division, so for that person a

Case 2:06-cv-00825-WS-M Document 29 Filed 05/04/07 Page 4 of 5
-5-

Northern Division venue is plainly more appropriate. Defendants have apparently not identified

a single witness found in the Southern Division. To be sure, defendants have named various

witnesses located in other states and countries, but their sole rationale for why the Southern

Division would be a more convenient venue for them is that “Mobile is far better equipped to

accommodate the international and transcontinental travel of these witnesses than Selma. ... If

the trial of this case is moved to Selma, these witnesses will most likely be required to travel by

airline to Mobile and then travel by car from Mobile to Selma.” (Defendants’ Request, at 1-2.) 

This contention overlooks the fact that the Northern Division is served by the Montgomery

Regional Airport, which is located just over 40 miles from the federal courthouse in Selma. By

comparison, the Southern Division is served by the Mobile Regional Airport, which is located

some 18 miles from the federal courthouse in Mobile. The difference in driving distances

(which amounts to less than 25 miles) between the courthouses and the respective airports that

service them does not amount to a material difference in the convenience of the witnesses, so as

to justify a transfer of venue to the Southern Division on forum non conveniens grounds.

Accordingly, the undersigned finds that defendants have failed to meet their burden of

establishing that the balance of justice and convenience favors transfer of this action from the

Northern Division, where it was originally filed, to the Southern Division. Plaintiff’s choice of

venue is entitled to deference, and defendants have not established that such choice is either

improper or outweighed by countervailing considerations, or that there will be any material

difference in the convenience of the witnesses, with respect to the two fora. For these reasons,

defendants’ Request for Reconsideration (doc. 23) is denied.

DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of May, 2007.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00825-WS-M Document 29 Filed 05/04/07 Page 5 of 5