DEFENDANT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S MOTION TO TRANSFER – PAGE 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

COURTNEY SCHWARTZ and §

DOUGLAS SCHWARTZ, individually §

and as next friends of C.D.S., a Minor, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. §

§

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and § Civ. Action No. 2:23-cv-00528-JRG

LONGVIEW MEDICAL CENTER, L.P. §

d/b/a LONGVIEW REGIONAL MEDICAL §

CENTER, §

§

Defendants. §

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S 

MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on November 17, 2023 in the Marshall Division of the Eastern 

District of Texas, ECF No. 1, even though this lawsuit has no connection to the Marshall Division. 

Plaintiffs are residents of Gregg County, Texas. ECF No. 1, ¶ 2.01. The lawsuit arises out of 

medical care received by Wellness Pointe and Longview Regional Medical Center employees in 

Longview, Texas, also in Gregg County, Texas. ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 5.02 and 5.09. Gregg County, Texas 

is in the Tyler Division of the Eastern District of Texas. The only connection to the Marshall 

Division is Plaintiffs’ choice. For the reasons discussed herein, the United States of America 

respectfully requests this Honorable Court transfer this case from the Marshall Division to the 

Tyler Division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Courtney Schwartz and Douglass Schwartz and their son C.D.S. (herein 

collectively “Plaintiffs”) reside in Longview, Gregg County, Texas. ECF No. 1, ¶ 2.01. They filed 

Case 2:23-cv-00528-JRG Document 9 Filed 02/05/24 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 97
DEFENDANT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S MOTION TO TRANSFER – PAGE 2

this case on November 17, 2023 alleging medical malpractice by employees of Wellness Pointe 

Longview/Pine Tree (“Wellness Pointe”), a federally qualified healthcare facility located in 

Longview, Texas and Longview Regional Medical Center (“LRMC”), a healthcare facility also 

located in Longview, Texas. See generally ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs and the providers who provided 

care to Plaintiff which forms the basis of Plaintiffs’ Complaint are in the Tyler Division. Due to 

minor Plaintiff’s medical conditions, he has also received medical care from providers located in 

Dallas, Texas and Fort Worth, Texas. For reasons rooted in local interests and convenience, 

Defendant United States of America respectfully requests that this Court transfer this matter to the

Tyler Division of the Eastern District of Texas. 

ARGUMENT

I. Legal Standard

Section 1404(a) provides that “[f]or the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the 

interests 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). Application of section 1404(a) is a two-part process. First, the court must 

determine whether the venue to which transfer is sought is one in which the case could have been 

filed. In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 203 (5th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). If the answer is yes, 

the court then weighs the following private and public interest factors: 

The private interest factors are: (1) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; 

(2) the availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses; (3) 

the cost of attendance for willing witnesses; and (4) all other practical problems 

that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive. The public interest 

factors are: [(5)] the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; [(6)]

the local interest in having localized interests decided at home; [(7)] the familiarity

of the forum with the law that will govern the case; and [(8)] the avoidance of 

unnecessary problems of conflict of laws or in the application of foreign law.

Case 2:23-cv-00528-JRG Document 9 Filed 02/05/24 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 98
DEFENDANT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S MOTION TO TRANSFER – PAGE 3

In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008) (citations and internal punctuation 

omitted). “The §1404(a) factors apply as much to transfers between divisions of the same district 

as to transfers from one district to another.” In re Radmax, Ltd., 720 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 2013).

The court should grant a motion to transfer venue pursuant to Section 1404(a) “if ‘the movant

demonstrates that the transferee venue is clearly more convenient,’ taking into consideration” the 

public and private interest factors enumerated in In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304 (5th 

Cir. 2008). Id. “The Supreme Court has long held that §1404(a) requires ‘individualized, case-bycase consideration of convenience and fairness.’” In re Genentech, 566 F.3d 1338,1346 (Fed. Cir. 

2009) (quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622 (1964). No single factor is dispositive.

Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 314–15. 

Factors 1 (relative ease of access to sources of proof), 2 (compulsory process to secure 

witness attendance), 7 (familiarity with the governing law), and 8 (avoidance of conflicts of law) 

are neutral. The other factors are discussed below. 

II. The Tyler Division has localized interests in this matter (public factor). 

The community of the Tyler Division has a strong local interest in this matter because the 

events, parties, and witnesses are all part of the Tyler Division community. There is “local interest 

in having localized interests decided at home,” In re Volkswagen, 371 F.3d at 206 (quoting Piper 

Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 241 n. 6 (1981)), and “[j]ury duty is a burden that ought not 

to be imposed upon the people of a community which has no relation to the litigation.” Id. (quoting 

Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508-09 (1947) (internal quotations omitted), superseded 

by statute on other grounds as stated in American Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443 (1994). 

Courts have recognized that “[t]ransfer is appropriate where none of the operative facts occurred 

in the division and where the division had no particular local interest in the outcome of the case.” 

La Day v. City of Lumberton, 2:11-cv-237-JRG, 2012 WL 928352, at *2 (E.D. Tex. March 19, 

Case 2:23-cv-00528-JRG Document 9 Filed 02/05/24 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 99
DEFENDANT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S MOTION TO TRANSFER – PAGE 4

2012) (Gilstrap, J.); Hudman v. United States of America, 6:21-cv-169-JRG, *5 (E.D. Tex. April 

28, 2021), attached hereto as Exhibit “1.” 

In La Day, this Court found that the transferee division clearly had the greater local 

government interest because the facts giving rise to the lawsuit occurred in the transferee division 

and a clear majority of the witnesses and evidence were also located in the transferee division. La 

Day, supra, at *3–4. Similarly, in Hudman, the Court found that the Tyler Division had a greater 

localized interest in the case where the accident at issue took place in the Tyler Division and the 

plaintiffs were residents of the Tyler Division. Hudman, supra, at 5.

So too here. In this case, as in La Day and Hudman, all operative facts occurred in Gregg 

County, Texas, which falls within the Tyler Division. Plaintiffs also reside in Gregg County, within 

the Tyler Division. The relevant witnesses, including LRMC employees and Wellness Pointe 

employees who provided care to Plaintiff Courtney Schwartz, are also located in Gregg County, 

Texas, which falls within the Tyler Division. The events giving rise to this lawsuit also occurred 

in Gregg County, Texas, which falls within the Tyler Division. These facts give rise to the Tyler 

Division community’s localized interest in this matter and having this matter decided by the 

members of the Tyler Division community. There are no known localized interests in this litigation 

held by the Marshall Division. Although Plaintiffs are not entitled to jury trial as to its claims 

against the United States, Plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial as to Defendant LRMC. Thus, the 

community of people meant to carry the responsibility of jury duty is not those of the Marshall 

Division, but the Tyler Division because the Marshall Division has no relation to this litigation.

Thus, this localized interest factor weighs heavily in favor of transfer to the Tyler Division. See, 

e.g., Hudman, supra, at *4. 

Case 2:23-cv-00528-JRG Document 9 Filed 02/05/24 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 100
DEFENDANT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S MOTION TO TRANSFER – PAGE 5

Hudman is instructive. In that case, the Court considered similar facts and found private 

factors supported transfer from the Marshall Division to the Tyler Division. The Court found the 

Tyler Division was a more convenient venue than the Marshall Division when the plaintiffs resided 

in the Tyler Division, the medical treatment occurred in the Tyler Division, persons with 

knowledge of the facts of the case resided in the Tyler Division, and sources of proof were located 

in the Tyler Division. Hudman, supra, at *4. In reaching this conclusion, the Court rejected the

plaintiffs’ argument that the Marshall Division was more convenient because it would take an 

additional aggregate distance of 46.9 miles of travel have the witnesses and sources of proof 

produced at the Tyler courthouse rather than the Marshall courthouse. Id. As in Hudman, the Court 

should find the private interest factors favor transfer. 

Plaintiffs will likely point to the Court’s hypothetical discussion in Smith v. Michels Corp., 

No. 2:13-cv-00185-JRG, 2013 WL 4811227 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 9, 2013) to argue transfer is not 

appropriate notwithstanding the lack of any connection to the Marshall Division. In that case, the 

Court posited a hypothetical “wherein all of the events occurred and witnesses reside in Carthage, 

Texas, for example, would have to be transferred to the Tyler Division of the Eastern District of 

Texas. Yet a transfer to the Tyler Division would require these hypothetical parties and witnesses 

to travel 33 miles further to the United States Courthouse in the Tyler Division than the Marshall 

Division.” Michels, supra, at *4 (emphasis in original). But that is exactly what the Court did in 

eight years later in Hudman, when it transferred the case from the Marshall Division to the Tyler 

Division despite plaintiffs’ showing that transfer to the Tyler Division would result in an almost 

50-mile increase in aggregate travel. Hudman, supra, at *4. This is because without a lack of 

connection to any of the facts, the public interests strongly favor having the matter decided local, 

which means it should be decided in the Tyler Division.

Case 2:23-cv-00528-JRG Document 9 Filed 02/05/24 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 101
DEFENDANT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S MOTION TO TRANSFER – PAGE 6

III. The Tyler Division is more convenient to the witnesses and sources of proof 

(private factor). 

The sources of proof, Plaintiffs and a majority of the healthcare providers, are located in

the Tyler Division. Plaintiffs are residents of Gregg County, Texas, which is in the Tyler Division. 

Based on information and belief, Defendant United States of America believes the place of 

Plaintiff Courtney Schwartz’s employment, where she works Monday through Friday, is located 

somewhat closer to the Tyler courthouse than the Marshall Courthouse. Wellness Pointe and 

LRMC are located within the Tyler Division. In fact, the Complaint fails to identify any witnesses 

or sources of proof who are not located in the Tyler Division. 

It is also noteworthy to mention that due to minor Plaintiff’s medical conditions which 

Plaintiffs allege were proximately caused by Defendants, minor Plaintiff received medical care 

from healthcare providers located in Fort Worth, Texas and Dallas, Texas. Should the healthcare 

providers located in Dallas and Fort Worth be needed at trial to opine on minor Plaintiff’s medical 

conditions (then and present), the Tyler Division courthouse is clearly a more convenient location 

to travel to (104 to 130 miles away from Dallas and Fort Worth providers, respectively) than that 

of the Marshall Courthouse (157 to 185 miles away from Dallas and Fort Worth providers, 

respectively). See Google Map Search Results, attached hereto as Exhibit “2.” Obviously, this 

case is in its infancy, and it is difficult to determine what witnesses and sources of proof would be 

ultimately necessary at trial, but at this point, the information available indicates that the relevant

witnesses and sources of proof are either located in the Tyler Division or are closer to Tyler, than 

in Marshall, Texas. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of transfer. See, e.g., Hudman, supra, at *4.

Case 2:23-cv-00528-JRG Document 9 Filed 02/05/24 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 102
DEFENDANT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S MOTION TO TRANSFER – PAGE 7

IV. There are no known administrative difficulties that might counsel against an 

intra-district transfer to the Tyler Division and transfer could help alleviate 

court congestion (public factor).

Transferring the case from the Marshall Division to the Tyler Division will not cause delay 

in the case and can be done without administrative difficulties. This lawsuit is in the early stages. 

The Court has not set a scheduling conference or any other hearing and thus, transfer would not 

cause any administrative difficulties. 

Moreover, it appears transferring this case to the Tyler Division would help ease court 

congestion. The Tyler Division has two district judges and two magistrate judges, whereas the 

Marshall Division only has one district judge and one magistrate judge. Although all judges in the 

Eastern District of Texas are extremely hard-working, the Tyler Division carries fewer cases per 

judge and those cases are terminated, on average, more quickly than cases filed in the Marshall 

Division. According to Lex Machina, from January 1, 2020 to January 18, 2024, there have been 

2,292 cases pending before Chief Judge Gilstrap, 654 before Judge Barker, and 550 before Judge 

Kernodle. See Lex Machina Charts, attached hereto as Exhibit “3.” The median time to 

termination of cases during that period is respectively 279, 172 days, and 198 days. Id. Based on 

these statistics, transferring the case to the Tyler Division might likely expedite its resolution. As 

such, this public interest factor weighs in favor of transfer. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing reasons, Defendant United States of America respectfully requests 

that this Court grant this motion and order transfer of this litigation to the Tyler Division as there 

is a localized interest of having this matter decided by the Tyler Division community, there is

relative ease of access to proof, there are no known administrative difficulties associated with 

Case 2:23-cv-00528-JRG Document 9 Filed 02/05/24 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 103
DEFENDANT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S MOTION TO TRANSFER – PAGE 8

transferring this matter, and the United States has met its burden in showing why transfer is 

appropriate. 

Respectfully submitted,

DAMIEN M. DIGGS

United States Attorney

Eastern District of Texas

/s/ Betty S. Young

JAMES G. GILLINGHAM, Texas Bar #24065295

BETTY S. YOUNG, Texas Bar #24102498 

Assistant United States Attorneys

United States Attorney’s Office

Eastern District of Texas

110 N. College Street; Suite 700

Tyler, Texas 75702

James.Gillingham@usdoj.gov

Betty.Young@usdoj.gov

Telephone: (903) 590-1400 

Facsimile: (903) 590-1436

ATTORNEYS FOR THE UNITED STATES OF 

AMERICA

Case 2:23-cv-00528-JRG Document 9 Filed 02/05/24 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 104
DEFENDANT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S MOTION TO TRANSFER – PAGE 9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 5, 2024, a true and correct copy of the foregoing has

been forwarded to all counsel of record through the Court’s electronic filing system (CM/ECF) 

as follows:

Les Weisbrod, lweisbrod@millerweisbrod.com

David E. Olesky, dolesky@millersweisbrod.com

Carrie Lynn Vine, cvine@millerweisbrod.com

Lauren N. Pierce, lpierce@millersweisbrod.com

Matthew Adair, madair@millerweisbrod.com

MILLER WEISBROD OLESKY

11551 Forest Central Drive, Suite 300

Dallas, TX 75243

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Timothy Reynolds, timreynolds@steedlawfirm.com

STEED DUNNILL REYNOLDS BAILEY STEPHENSON, LLP

1717 Main Street, Suite 2950

Dallas, Texas 75201

Attorneys for Longview Medical Center LP d/b/a Longview Regional Medical Center 

/s/ Betty S. Young

BETTY S. YOUNG

Case 2:23-cv-00528-JRG Document 9 Filed 02/05/24 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 105
DEFENDANT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S MOTION TO TRANSFER – PAGE 10

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I hereby certified that on February 5, 2024, I contacted Plaintiffs’ counsel and counsel for 

Defendant Longview Regional Medical Center, to confer on the relief requested herein pursuant 

to Local Rule CV-7(h). Plaintiffs’ counsel is opposed to the relief sought herein. Based on previous 

communication with counsel for Defendant Longview Regional Medical Center, counsel 

previously expressed being unopposed to the relief sought herein and in fact, filed its own Motion 

to Transfer Venue. 

/s/ Betty S. Young

BETTY S. YOUNG

Case 2:23-cv-00528-JRG Document 9 Filed 02/05/24 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 106