1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

KYLE KING, et al.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-01122-M

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant Kyle King’s Amended Motion to Transfer Venue (ECF 

No. 17), seeking to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to state district court in Tulsa

County, Oklahoma.

1

 The Amended Motion to Transfer is DENIED.

On May 20, 2022, Plaintiff The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company filed suit in this Court

against Defendants Kyle King, Kyle Boyd, Insurance 3 Group, Inc., and 1 Bonding & Insurance 

Group, LLC.2

 ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 1–5. On May 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, 

alleging that it entered into an agreement with Defendants, in which Defendants were granted 

authority to issue bonds on behalf of Plaintiff, as surety, upon Plaintiff’s approval. ECF No. 9 

¶ 8. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants fraudulently issued bonds on its behalf, which resulted in 

claims against the bonds, and a lawsuit being filed by third-party claimants against Plaintiff and 

1 The Court denied the earlier filed Motions to Transfer (ECF Nos. 12, 16) as moot, and is only considering the 

Amended Motion to Transfer. ECF No. 31. 2 Kyle King is the only Defendant who has appeared in this case. The other Defendants were served (ECF Nos. 26–

30), but they have not made an appearance in this case, nor have they filed a response to the Complaint within the 

deadline under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(1)(A)(i). The Court ordered Plaintiff, by January 27, 2023, to 

show cause why it has not moved for an entry of default against those Defendants, or alternatively, to file a motion 

for entry of default with the Clerk and a motion for default judgment with the Court. ECF No. 32. 

Case 3:22-cv-01122-M Document 34 Filed 01/25/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 185
2

Defendants in Oklahoma state court (the “Oklahoma Litigation”).

3

 Id. ¶¶ 13–14. As a result of 

the claims and resulting Oklahoma Litigation, Plaintiff brought this suit, demanding the

Defendants indemnify Plaintiff from expenses, and seeking damages incurred because of

Defendants’ alleged breaches of contract and fiduciary duties, and fraud. Id. at 6–8. 

Defendant King now moves to transfer this case to state district court in Tulsa County,

Oklahoma, on the grounds that all parties to this action are parties to the Oklahoma Litigation. 

ECF No. 17 at 3. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court can transfer “any civil action to another 

district or division where it might have been brought” if it is in the interest of justice and for the 

convenience of the parties and witnesses. As a matter of law, the Court must deny King’s 

request to transfer this case to Oklahoma state court because § 1404(a) does not permit a federal 

court to transfer a case to state court. Pope v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co., 345 U.S. 379, 384 

(1953). Therefore, the Amended Motion to Transfer is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

January 25, 2023.

BARBARA M. G. LYNN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3 Sheridan Properties, LLC v. IntelliStay Hospitality Management, LLC, et al., No. CJ-2018-2147, 2018 WL 

11344886 (Okla. Dist. Aug. 29, 2018).

Case 3:22-cv-01122-M Document 34 Filed 01/25/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 186