1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

RICK-VINCENT GARCIA, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

FCA US, LLC, 

 Defendant. 

 / 

Case No. 2:19-cv-12750 

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

OPINION AND ORDER 

GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER [11] 

 The present action involves a potential class that alleged violations of the 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). ECF 1. On November 11, 2019, 

Defendant FCA US, LLC filed a motion to transfer the case to the Southern District 

of Florida. ECF 11. The Court reviewed the briefs and finds that a hearing is 

unnecessary. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2). For the following reasons, the Court will 

grant Defendant's motion and transfer the case. 

BACKGROUND 

 Plaintiff Rick-Vincent Garcia, a Florida resident, initially filed the case in the 

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ("Florida case") and 

alleged that Defendant violated the TCPA when it caused "a prerecorded message to 

be transmitted to Plaintiff's cellular telephone." See ECF 11-1, PgID 70; see also

Garcia v. FCA, No. 1:18-cv-23223-FAM, ECF No. 1 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 8, 2018). On 

December 10, 2018, the Florida case was stayed pending the outcome of Salcedo v. 

Case 1:20-cv-22191-JEM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2020 Page 1 of 6
 2

Hanna, 936 F.3d 1162 (11th Cir. 2019) because the outcome of that case "could [have 

been] dispositive of the [Florida] case." Garcia v. FCA, No. 1:18-cv-23223-FAM, ECF 

No. 32 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 11, 2018). The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 

Circuit issued an opinion in Salcedo on August 28, 2019, and held that a single text 

message sent to a plaintiff's cellphone in violation of the TCPA does not "meet[] the 

injury-in-fact requirement of Article III." Salcedo, 936 F.3d at 1172. And it is clear to 

the Court that there are similarities between the injury of receiving a single text 

message and the injury of receiving a single voicemail message. 

 Soon after the Salcedo opinion was released, Plaintiff moved to voluntarily 

dismiss the Florida case and the Southern District of Florida granted the motion 

thirteen days later, on September 10, 2019. Garcia v. FCA, No. 1:18-cv-23223-FAM, 

ECF No. 35 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 10, 2019). Ten days later, on September 20, 2019, Plaintiff 

filed a nearly identical complaint in the Eastern District of Michigan. ECF 1; see also

ECF 11-1 (redline comparison of Plaintiff's Florida and Michigan complaints). 

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss and the present motion to transfer the case to the 

Southern District of Florida. ECF 10, 11. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

 "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). "To transfer an action under [§] 1404(a) the following 

criteria must be met: (1) the action could have been brought in the transferee district 

court; (2) a transfer serves the interest of justice; and (3) transfer is in the convenience 

Case 1:20-cv-22191-JEM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2020 Page 2 of 6
 3

of the witnesses and parties." Kepler v. ITT Sheraton Corp., 860 F. Supp. 393, 398 

(E.D. Mich. 1994). In ruling on a § 1404(a) motion, the Court should consider "the 

private interest of the parties, including their convenience and the convenience of 

potential witnesses, as well as other public-interest concerns, such as systematic 

integrity and fairness, which come under the rubric of 'interests of justice.'" Moses v. 

Bus. Card Exp., Inc., 929 F.2d 1131, 1137 (6th Cir. 1991) (citing Stewart Org., Inc. v. 

Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 30 (1988)). 

DISCUSSION 

 In its motion, Defendant claimed that Plaintiff engaged in forum shopping 

when he dismissed a case pending in the Southern District of Florida after an 

unfavorable decision from the Eleventh Circuit and refiled a nearly identical case in 

the Eastern District of Michigan. ECF 11, PgID 54. Based on its analysis of the 

factors, the Court agrees and will grant Defendant's motion to transfer the case. 

I. The Action Could Have Been Brought in the Southern District of Florida 

 Defendant must show that the case could have been brought in the transferee 

court—the Southern District of Florida. See, e.g., Fluidtech, Inc. v. Gemu Valves, Inc., 

457 F. Supp. 2d 762, 766 (E.D. Mich. 2006). Here, not only could Plaintiff have filed 

this case in the Southern District of Florida, he did file an identical case against the 

same Defendant in that district. See Garcia v. FCA, No. 1:18-cv-23223-FAM, ECF No. 

1 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 8, 2018). The first factor favors transfer. 

II. Interest of Justice 

 Next, the Court must determine if transfer serves the interest of justice. "It is 

well established that, '§1404(a) should not create or multiply opportunities for forum 

Case 1:20-cv-22191-JEM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2020 Page 3 of 6
 4

shopping.'" Energy Conversion Devices Liquidation Trust v. Trina Solar Ltd., No. 13-

14241, 2014 WL 2763648, at *2 (E.D. Mich. June 18, 2014) (quoting Ferens v. John 

Deere Co., 494 U.S. 516, 523 (1990)). Forum shopping may "reasonably be inferred" 

when a plaintiff "files the same or similar case represented by the same law firm in a 

different district after receiving unfavorable" precedent in the first district. 

LegalForce, Inc v. Legalzoom.com, Inc., No. 2:18-cv-06147-ODW-GJS, 2018 WL 

6179319, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2018) (collecting cases). And "[i]t is not in the 

interest of justice to encourage, or even allow, a plaintiff to select one district 

exclusively or primarily to obtain or avoid specific precedents." Lab Corp. of Am. 

Holdings v. NLRP, 942 F. Supp. 2d 1, 5 (D.D.C. 2013). 

 Here Plaintiff moved to dismiss the Florida case days after the Eleventh 

Circuit handed down potentially negative precedent to his legal theory. He also 

swiftly filed a nearly identical complaint in this Court. He was represented by the 

same law firms in both cases. The timing of Plaintiff's dismissal and refiling of his 

complaint "leads the [C]ourt to suspect that" he refiled his complaint "in [an] attempt 

to forum shop." See Energy Conversion Devices Liquidation Trust, 2014 WL 2763648, 

at *3. Because Plaintiff filed his complaint in the Eastern District of Michigan to 

avoid Eleventh Circuit precedent,1 transferring the case to the Southern District of 

1 Plaintiff argued that Defendant's motive to move for the case's return to the 

Southern District of Florida was forum shopping because FCA maintained in the 

original action that the Southern District of Florida did not have jurisdiction over the 

nationwide class action. ECF 14, PgID 97–98. Defendant, however, has conceded that 

if transfer to the Southern District of Florida "is granted, jurisdiction over the 

nationwide class is a given." ECF 15, PgID 121. 

Case 1:20-cv-22191-JEM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2020 Page 4 of 6
 5

Florida will serve "the interest of justice by discouraging the practice of forum 

shopping." Warrior Sports, Inc. v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n., No. 1:08-cv-808, 

2008 WL 11356782, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 17, 2008). The second factor therefore 

weighs in favor of transferring the case to the Southern District of Florida. 

III. Convenience of Witnesses and Parties 

 Based on the small amount of briefing submitted on the final factor, the 

Southern District of Florida is at least as convenient a forum as this Court. 

Defendant's employees reside mainly in Michigan, but one of the law firms 

representing it is from Missouri. Plaintiff and his attorneys, on the other hand, reside 

in Florida. The parties will both have to travel to take depositions and attend 

hearings in the Eastern District of Michigan. But the Southern District of Florida is 

close to home for the plaintiff and his lawyers. And because Defendant is the party 

seeking transfer, the Court can infer that Defendant is unconcerned about any 

personal loss of convenience. The last factor therefore leans slightly in favor of 

transfer. 

CONCLUSION 

 Based on all the factors set forth above, transfer to the Southern District of 

Florida is appropriate. 

ORDER 

WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's motion to transfer 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) [11] is GRANTED. 

Case 1:20-cv-22191-JEM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2020 Page 5 of 6
 6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall TRANSFER

the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions currently pending on the 

Docket [10, 16, 21] are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT. 

 This is a final order that closes the case. 

SO ORDERED. 

 

 s/ Stephen J. Murphy, III 

 STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: May 26, 2020 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties 

and/or counsel of record on May 26, 2020, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/ David P. Parker 

 Case Manager 

Case 1:20-cv-22191-JEM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2020 Page 6 of 6