United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
ORDER AND REASONS
J. BARBIER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is a Motion to Transfer Venue (Rec. Doc.
9) filed by Georgia-Pacific LLC (“Defendant”), an
opposition thereto filed by Antwoan Sashington
(“Plaintiff”) (Rec. Doc. 11), and a reply filed
by Defendant (Rec. Doc. 14). Having considered the motion and
legal memoranda, the record, and the applicable law, the
Court finds that the motion should be DENIED.
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
case arises from an injury Plaintiff sustained while working
at a facility owned by Defendant. Plaintiff alleges that he
is a resident of Alabama and was employed by Envirovac
Holdings, LLC (“Envirovac”) of McIntosh, Alabama
as a general laborer at all times relevant to this
litigation. (Rec. Doc. 1 at 1.) He states that on or about
January 5, 2017, Envirovac sent him to a facility owned by
Defendant in Zachary, Louisiana to perform industrial
cleaning services. Id. at 2. Plaintiff alleges that
a piece of equipment fell and hit a boiler near where he was
working, causing hot ash to blow out of the boiler and cover
him. Id. Plaintiff alleges that he has suffered
severe burning which has and will continue to require
extensive medical treatment. Id. at 2-3.
brought suit against Defendant on January 24, 2017, alleging
that the incident was caused by Defendant's negligence.
Id. at 2. On March 14, 2017, Defendant filed the
instant motion to change venue (Rec. Doc. 9), requesting that
the Court transfer the action to the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Louisiana (“Middle
STANDARD AND DISCUSSION
requests a transfer to the Middle District pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1404(a), which provides the Court with
discretion to transfer any civil action to another district
“for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in
the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
District courts have broad discretion when making this
determination. In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545
F.3d 304, 311 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (Volkswagen
II). The party requesting a venue transfer must make a
threshold showing that venue is proper in the transferee
venue, and also must show “good cause” for the
transfer. Id. at 315 n.10. Good cause exists when
the movant demonstrates that the requested venue is
“clearly more convenient” than the venue chosen
by the plaintiff. Id. at 315. But “when the
transferee venue is not clearly more convenient than the
venue chosen by the plaintiff, the plaintiff's choice
should be respected.” Id.
does not dispute that this case could have been brought in
the Middle District. Accordingly, the relevant inquiry is
whether Defendant has demonstrated good cause by establishing
that the Middle District is clearly more convenient than the
Eastern District. Courts determine the relative convenience
of the parties by weighing certain private and public
interest factors. Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 315
(adopting factors first articulated in Gulf Oil Corp. v.
Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1949) in the context of forum
non conveniens). 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.
Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 315 (line breaks added).
The public interest ...