Federal Judiciary

Motion to Dismiss or Transfer for Improper or Inconvenient Venue Denied

By Michael C. Smith

GBS Development, Inc. v. West, 2009 WL 1703217(E.D.Tex. Jun 18, 2009) (NO. CIV A 5:09-CV-39(DF))
Judge: David Folsom
Holding: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue DENIED.
This is a securities case in which the defendant sought a transfer to Dallas claiming that venue was not proper, as well as that a transfer was proper under 1404 for convenience grounds.  Judge Folsom rejected the first assertion, noting that part of the claimed acts occurred in the district.  As for the second, the Court noted that several of the plaintiffs were located in Arkansas, near Texarkana, thus a transfer would inconvenience them, although it would convenience (I think that's now officially a verb) the defendants.  But in fact, Texarkana was actually the most convenient location for the claimed witnesses, since some were east of it, and some west, so a transfer to Dallas would be a pronounced step backwards when it came to witness convenience. 
According, the Court concluded that "the Eastern District of Texas is a proper venue for this action. In addition, given the specific facts and circumstances of this case, only one factor-local interest-weighs slightly in favor of transfer. All the other factors do not weigh in favor of transfer or weigh strongly against transfer. When all of these factors are considered collectively, the Court concludes Defendants has failed to clearly demonstrate that the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas would be a more convenient venue than the Texarkana Division of the Eastern District of Texas."  (Emphasis in original).

Full post as published by Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice on June 22, 2009 (boomark / email).