Federal Judiciary

Motion to Transfer Denied in Products Case

By Michael C. Smith

Woods v. General Motors Corp., 2009 WL 185421(E.D.Tex. Jan 16, 2009) (NO. CIV.A. 2-08CV-122)
Judge: T. John Ward
Holding: Motion to Transfer Venue DENIED
This is a product liability case in which the plaintiff alleges her daughter died in a car wreck fire in North Dakota as a result of defective seat belt latches in the U-Haul truck, rented in Lindale.  The plaintiff lives in Yantis, Texas.  For readers unfamiliar with East Texas geography, both towns are approximately an hour west of Marshall (substantially less than 100 miles, not that it matters.  Oh, wait, yes it does.).  Defendants in this case (there are four) are in Michigan, Arizona and New Jersey.  While this is not Judge Ward's first venue opinion post-Volkswagen II, it is the first published one, and reflects the current venue analysis as a result of that case.   
Defendant sought a transfer to North Dakota, claiming that it was ":clearly more convenient" than Marshall.  Judge Ward first noted that the plaintiff lives within 100 miles of Marshall, and that none of the defendants - or any other parties - was located in North Dakota.  Defendants argued that investigating personnel are located in North Dakota, and plaintiff responded that since the plaintiff's daughter was born and raised in the Marshall area, all witnesses who knew her and could testify regarding her were within 100 miles of Marshall, as were the U-Haul personnel who may testify about any representations made to her at the time of the rental, as crucial witnesses of some of claims regarding formation of the lease contract.
After reviewing the applicable factors, Judge Ward concluded that "this District is just as convenient, if not more convenient to the parties and the witnesses than the District of North Dakota. The Court rules that because the defendants have failed to show that the transferee venue is clearly more convenient than the venue chosen by the plaintiff, the plaintiff's choice of venue should be respected" and accordingly denied the motion.

Full post as published by Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice on January 30, 2009 (boomark / email).