UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

ERIC JACKSON ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v. No. 4:22-cv-825-P

ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, IN HIS 

OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY

OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL.,

Defendants.

ORDER

A district court may transfer any civil case “[f]or the convenience of 

the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice. . . to any other 

district or division where it might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1404(a). The purpose of § 1404(a) “is to prevent the waste of time, 

energy, and money, and to protect litigants, witnesses, and the public 

against unnecessary inconvenience and expense.” Van Dusen v. 

Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964) (cleaned up). When considering

whether to transfer venue, a district court considers several private and 

public interest factors, “none of which can be said to be of dispositive 

weight.” In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008). 

The decision to transfer a case is within the sound discretion of the 

district court. Jarvis Christian Coll. v. Exxon Corp., 845 F.2d 523, 528 

(5th Cir. 1988).

“Generally, a court should transfer a case where most of the 

witnesses and evidence in the case are closer to the transferee venue, 

with few or no convenience factors favoring the venue chosen by the 

plaintiff.” In re Nintendo Co., 589 F.3d 1194, 1198 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In 

some cases, however, the “consideration of interest of justice, which 

includes judicial economy, may be determinative to a particular transfer 

motion, even if the convenience of the parties and witnesses might call 

for a different result.” Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 26 Filed 10/03/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 782
2

1559, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (cleaned up); see also 15 CHARLES A. WRIGHT,

ARTHUR R. MILLER & EDWARD H. COOPER, FED. PRAC. & PROC. § 3854, 

439–40 (2d ed.1986) (“the interests of justice may be decisive in ruling 

on a transfer motion even though the convenience of parties and 

witnesses point in a different direction.”). Considerations of judicial 

economy and efficiency “support a policy of having substantially similar 

matters litigated before the same tribunal.” Sundance Leasing Co. v. 

Bingham, 503 F. Supp. 139, 140 (N.D. Tex. 1980).

In this case, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction to

enjoin the enforcement of the Coast Guard’s COVID-19 vaccination 

policies. See ECF No. 1. The Court has since learned of at least two other

undecided cases filed before this case, in which members of the Coast 

Guard have filed suit, seeking the same injunction against the same 

Defendants as in this case. See Bazzrea v. Mayorkas, No. 3:22-cv-265

(S.D. Tex. filed on July 25, 2022); Pilot v. Austin, No. 8:22-cv-1278-SDMTGW (M.D. Fla. filed on Oct. 15, 2021).

Because these cases are substantially similar to this case, the Court 

ORDERS both Plaintiffs and Defendants to file responses on whether 

the Court should transfer the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) on or 

before October 10, 2022. 

SO ORDERED on this 3rd day of October 2022.

Mark T. Pittman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 26 Filed 10/03/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 783