Source: https://casetext.com/case/sturm-v-tlc-vision-usa-corp-1
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 20:16:04+00:00

Document:
Sturm v. TLC Vision (Usa) Corp.
MARY JO'EL STURM, O.D., DAWN HOLSTED, O.D., JARED C. FREEMAN, O.D., STEPHANIE GOINS, AND STEPHANIE SOLES STROJNY, Plaintiffs, v. TLC VISION (USA) CORPORATION AND TLC HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants.
The instant case was filed on October 19, 2012, in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. On or about October 15, 2012, defendants commenced a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Defendants sued plaintiffs as well as Njoy Vision, LLC, the employer of four of the plaintiffs. The primary basis for defendants' Missouri lawsuit is plaintiffs' executed non-competition and non-solicitation agreements. The same agreements are the basis for the instant lawsuit filed four days after defendants' Missouri lawsuit. Defendants contend it would be a waste of time, energy and money to litigate both lawsuits. Defendants also contend pursuant to the first filed case rule, this case should be heard in Missouri, not Oklahoma. See Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Brown, 348 F.2d 689, 692 (10th Cir. 1965).
Plaintiffs contend venue is proper in this Court because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to plaintiffs' claims occurred in this District. Specifically, plaintiffs contend defendants seek to enforce certain non-competition and non-solicitation agreement provisions in Oklahoma City and Tulsa, Oklahoma. Plaintiffs also assert they have requested declaratory judgment in this action to halt the enforcement of those provisions. On January 8, 2013, this Court denied plaintiffs' motion for temporary restraining order and temporary and permanent injunction.
Plaintiffs also contend the first-to-file rule should not be applied in this case. This "[C]ourt need not consider plaintiff's argument at this juncture, however, since case law clearly indicates that 'the court in which the first-filed case was brought decides the question of whether or not the first-filed rule, or alternatively, an exception to the first-filed rule, applies." Purnell v. Amerisure Mutual Ins. Co, CIV-08-729 2009 WL 223406, *2 (W.D. Okla., January 29, 2009) (internal citations omitted).
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." Jacobs v. Lancaster, 526 F. Supp. 767, 769 (W.D. Okla. 1981) (citing Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (1964); Cont'l Grain Co. v. Barge FBL-585, 364 U.S. 19 (1960)).
"The party moving to transfer a case pursuant to § 1404(a) bears the burden of establishing that the existing forum is inconvenient." Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Country Chrysler, Inc., 928 F.2d 1509, 1515 (10th Cir. 1991). A district court has discretion to adjudicate motions to transfer based upon an "individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness." Id. at 1516 (internal quotations and citations omitted). "Unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed." Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific R.R. Co. v. Hugh Breeding, Inc., 232 F.2d 584, 587 (10th Cir. 1956) (quoting Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1957)). "However, this factor has reduced value where there is an absence of any significant contact by the forum state with the transactions or conduct underlying the cause of action." Roc, Inc. v. Progress Drillers, Inc., 481 F. Supp. 147, 151 (W.D. Okla. 1979). See also Jacobs, 526 F. Supp. at 769.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Transfer [docket no. 7] and TRANSFERS this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of March, 2013.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1404
 § 1404
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1404
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.