Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00645/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00645-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

LASHUNDRA JACKSON, )

 )

PLAINTIFF, )

 )

v. ) CASE NO. 2:07-cv-645-MEF-WC

 )

STATE OF ALABAMA DEPARTMENT )

OF TRANSPORTATION, et al., )

 )

DEFENDANTS. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This employment discrimination action is before the Court on the Motion to Transfer Venue

(Doc. # 2) filed on August 7, 2007 by Defendants. The Court has considered the arguments in

support of and in opposition to the motion and finds that it is due to be DENIED. 

Defendants invoke 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) as the statutory basis for their motion to transfer this

case from this district to the United States District Court for the Southern Division of Alabama.

Section 1404(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code allows a district court to transfer any civil

action to a district where it might have been brought to promote the convenience of the parties and

witnesses and in the interests of justice. “28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) places the decision of whether a

motion for a change of venue should be granted within the sound discretion of the court.” Hutchens

v. Bill Heard Chevrolet Co., 928 F. Supp. 1089, 1090 (M.D. Ala.1996); see also Ross v. Buckeye

Cellulose Corp., 980 F.2d 648, 654 (11th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 814 (1994); Holmes v.

Freightliner, LLC., 237 F. Supp. 2d 690, 692 (M.D. Ala. 2002).

Section 1404(a) only applies in cases where the plaintiff's chosen venue is an appropriate

venue. Second, the action may only be transferred to a venue in which the action could have

Case 2:07-cv-00645-MEF-WC Document 12 Filed 09/21/07 Page 1 of 3
2

originally been brought. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The Court finds that the venue provision of Title

VII, the statute pursuant to which Plaintiff’s claims are brought, authorizes venue in any judicial

district in the State of Alabama. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3). Accordingly, the Court finds that

venue is proper in either this district or the proposed transferor district.

After determining whether the action could have been brought in the transferee district court,

the Court must decide whether the balance of convenience favors transfer. Johnston v. FosterWheeler Constructors, Inc., 158 F.R.D. 496, 503 (M.D. Ala. 1994). 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. See Folkes v. Haley, 64 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (M.D. Ala.

1999);Tampa Bay Storm, Inc. v. Arena Football League, Inc., 932 F. Supp. 281, 282 (M.D. Fla. 1996).

The applicable § 1404(a) analysis recognizes that the plaintiff's selected forum is

presumptively correct, and accordingly, the court affords deference to a plaintiff’s selection. The

defendant, therefore, bears the burden of demonstrating that the suggested forum is more convenient.

In re Ricoh Corp., 870 F.2d 570, 572 (11th Cir. 1989). Section 1404(a) allows transferring to a more

convenient forum, “but not one which is likely to prove equally convenient or inconvenient.” Van

Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 645-46 (1964). The court faced with a motion to transfer must

engage in an “individualized case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.” Stewart

Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (quoting Van Dusen, 376 U.S. at 622).

Federal courts traditionally have accorded a plaintiff’s choice of forum considerable deference. See

In re Ricoh Corp., 870 F.2d at 573; Hutchens, 928 F. Supp. at 1090. As some courts have stated, the

Case 2:07-cv-00645-MEF-WC Document 12 Filed 09/21/07 Page 2 of 3
3

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.” Mohamed v. Mazda Motor Corp., 90 F. Supp.

2d 757, 774 (E.D. Tex. 2000) (citation omitted). 

This Court has carefullyconsidered the relevant factors and finds that Defendants have failed

to meet their burden of showing that the Southern District of Alabama is more convenient than the

Middle District of Alabama and that Defendants have not shown that an analysis of the relevant

factors overcomes the strong presumption in favor of the plaintiff’s choice of venue. Accordingly,

the motion to transfer venue is due to be DENIED. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion to Transfer Venue (Doc.

# 2) is DENIED.

DONE this the 21st day of September, 2007. 

 /s/ Mark E. Fuller 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00645-MEF-WC Document 12 Filed 09/21/07 Page 3 of 3