better served by transferring the action to ... where the situs of material events occurred.”),

Lastly, Plaintiffs argue that the interest of justice would be served by retaining the case in the
Northern District of Illinois since a jury in the Northern District would allegedly be more diverse
than one in the Central District of Illinois. However, demographic makeup of potential juries is not
a proper factor to be considered in a § 1404(a) analysis. Litigants “are not entitled to a jury of any
particular composition.” Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 530, 538 (1975).

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue is GRANTED. It is ordered that

the case be transferred to the Central District of Illinois, Rock Island Division. Case is terminated,

IT IS SO ORDERED.
NY) A dts,
hat, Darch, Judge
United States District Court
Date:


U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Next, the public and private interests involved must be weighed to determine
how transfer would affect the convenience of the parties and witnesses as well as the interests of
justice. Coffey, 796 F.2d at 219. The private interests of the witnesses and parties weigh in favor
of transfer: (1) Plaintiffs’ choice of forum is entitled to little deference because it is not their home
forum, and a substantial portion of the conduct forming the basis of this lawsuit occurred in the
Central District of IHlinois, see FUL Inc. v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 204, 839 F.Supp. 1307, 1311
(N.D.IIL 1993); (2) four of the five Plaintiffs reside within or near the Central District of Illinois; (3)
a clear majority of the witnesses who will testify in the matter reside in the Central District of
Illinois.

Consideration of the “interests of justice” weighs in favor of transfer. “Factors traditionally
considered in an ‘interest of justice’ analysis relate to the efficient administration of the court
system.” Coffey, 796 F.2d at 220. These factors include speed of disposition, judicial familiarity
with the relevant law, and the community’s interest in having a dispute resolved in a particular
forum. Jd.

Although, statistically speaking, cases move to trial quicker in the Central District of Illinois,
they are resolved sooner in the Northern District, See LEONIDAS MECHAM, JUDICIAL BUSINESS OF
THE UNITED STATES Courts, 166, 183 (2000). As to judicial familiarity with the relevant law,
judges in either district are equally familiar with the law regarding Title VII and § 1981 claims.
However, the interest of justice would be served by transferring the case to the district where the
majority of the conduct upon which the claims are based occurred. See e.g., Anchor Wall Systems,
Inc. vy. R& D Concrete Products, Inc., 55 F Supp.2d 871, 875 (N.D. Ill. 1999)(“However, because

the plaintiff's action has no significant connection to this forum, the interest of justice would be

3.


Mite Order Foren (06/97)

. & . 4 United States District Court, Northern District of Mlinois
C am si judge itting Judge if Other
Nnpcvsanc tee | ohn W. Darrah | Stn bet Oe
CASE NUMBER 00 C 8074 DATE 7/5/2001
CASE JAMES PILLAR vs. EXELON
TITLE

{ln the foltowing box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g,, plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and
nature of the motion being presented.)

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

qQ) Q Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.}

Q) Q Brief in support of motion due

3) a Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer brief due

(4 Qo Ruling/Hearing on setfor at

(3) ao Status hearing[heid/continued to} [set for/re-set for}on__set for at

(6) o Pretrial conference{held/continued to] {set for/re-set for} on___set for een: Sena

(7) oa Trial{set for/re-set forjon at

(8) Qo {[Bench/Jury trial} (Hearing) held/continued to at ee

(9) im This case is dismissed {with/without} prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to}

OFRCP4(m) OGeneral Rule21 OFRCP4i(ayl) FRCP41(a)(2).

(10) {Other docket entry} Enter Memorandum Opinion And Order. Defendant’s moti
venue is granted. It is ordered that the case be transferred to the Central District of Hlinois
Division.

dl RX {For further detail see order (on reverse side offattached to) the original minute order.}

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.
umber of notices

Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

ne antl

nN
Notified counsel by telephone. wt dae doexeted

| Dockering to mait notices.

Mail AO 450 form. ®

Copy to judge/magistrate judge. pa ilba

ay oh be SU
courtroom Gi JUL vs mis date ited tice
LG deputy's
initials.

{ Date/time received in


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS,

EASTERN DIVISION.
)
JAMES PILLAR, RICKY DUNBAR, )
AUBREY W. CLAY, DENNIS GIBBS, )
and JULIUS THORNTON, »)
)
Plaintiffs, ) Case No. 00 C 8074
)
v. y The Honorable John W. Darrah
)
EXELON, f/k/a COMMONWEALTH _ )
EDISON COMPANY, )
) . a
Defendant. ) JUL > 6 7004
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Exelon’s Motion to Transfer Venue. For

the reasons stated herein, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND

On March 12, 2001, Plaintiffs James Pillar, Ricky Dunbar, Aubrey W. Clay, Dennis Gibbs,
and Julius Thornton (“Plaintiffs”) filed suit against Defendant Exelon (“Defendant” or “Exelon”)
in the Northern District of Illinois for discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment in
violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et seq. and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The alleged conduct which
forms the basis of this suit took place while Plaintiffs were employees of Defendant at its Quad
Cities facilities.

Plaintiff James Pillar resides at 3126 18th Ave., Rock Island, Illinois, in the Central District

of Illinois. Plaintiff Ricky Dunbar resides at 5607 Summer Meadow Pass, Stone Mountain, Georgia.

: 0


Plaintiff Aubrey Clay resides at 6033 Jebens Ave., Davenport, lowa. Plaintiff Dennis Gibbs resides
at 2860 East 32nd St., Davenport, Jowa. Plaintiff Julius Thornton resides at 1020 21st Ave., Rock
Island, I}inois, in the Central District of linois. Defendant Exelon is a Pennsylvania corporation
authorized to transact business in the State of Hlinois.
DISCUSSION

Defendant Exelon’s Motion for Change of Venue requests an Order transferring this action
to the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Rock Island Division. In its
Motion, Defendant alleges that (1) all the material events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred
in the Central District of Illinois, (2) the Central District of Illinois is a more economical and
convenient forum for the prospective witnesses and parties, and (3) all sources of proofin this matter
are located in the Central District of Hlinois.

28 U.S.C. § 1404 governs requests for changes in venue. It states in relevant part:

(a) 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.
The party seeking a transfer under section § 1404(a) bears the burden of establishing that: (1) venue
is proper in the transferor district; (2) venue is proper in the transferee forum; and (3) the transfer
is for the convenience of the parties and the witnesses and is in the interests of justice. Gen 17, Inc.,
v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 953 F.Supp. 240, 241 (N.D.I!) 1997)(citing Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron
Works, 796 ¥.2d 27, 219-20 (7th Cir. 1986)).

Venuc is proper here since Exelon is subject to personal jurisdiction in the Northern District
of Illinois. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). Venue is also proper in the Central District of Illinois since a

“substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in that district. 28

-2-