United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division
ROBERT G. JAMES
L. HAYES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
February 8, 2018, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion [doc.
#46] seeking reconsideration of the order transferring this
case from the Eastern District of Texas (“EDTX”)
to the Western District of Louisiana
(“WDLA”). For reasons that follow, Plaintiff's
Motion for reconsideration is
November 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed this action in the United
States District Court of the EDTX. See Complaint,
doc. #1. On February 10, 2017, Defendant filed a motion to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue,
or, alternatively, to transfer venue [doc. #4]. In his
sur-reply to Defendant's motion [doc. #10], Plaintiff
states the following:
In the unlikely event that this Court determines it does not
have jurisdiction over the defendant, Plaintiff would request
the Court transfer the case to the Western District of
Louisiana in Shreveport, as the Middle District of North
Carolina would be extremely inconvenient for all nonparty
witnesses, including doctors in Texas and first responders in
Sur-Reply, doc. #10, pp. 2-3. At the hearing on
Defendant's motion, Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne stated
that he would grant Defendant's request to transfer venue
and inquired into Plaintiff's preference of new venue:
Court: ….I would assume that your preferred course
would be to transfer it to the Western District of Louisiana
as opposed to dismissal.
Mr. Ross: Yes, your Honor. Transcript of Motion Hearing, June
13, 2017, doc. 49-1, p: 15, lines 8-11.
On June 13, 2017, Magistrate Judge Payne entered an order
transferring the case to the WDLA [doc. #13]. In that order,
Magistrate Judge Payne held as follows:
Because the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Mabe, and
hence venue under § 1391(b)(1) is improper, the Court
finds it suitable in the “interests of justice”
to transfer the case to the Western District of Louisiana,
the district where the accident occurred. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1406(a). Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue
(Dkt. 4) is GRANTED.
Order, doc. #13, p. 2.
Motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff's argues that
transferring his case to the WDLA, where the accident giving
rise to his claims occurred, created an unintended and unjust
result. See Plaintiff's Motion, doc.
#46, p. 2. Rather, Plaintiff argues, the court should have
transferred the case to the Middle District of North Carolina
(“MDNC”) where Defendant resides. See
Id. at p. 3. Plaintiff's argument relies on his
concession, for the purpose of the Motion only, that his
claims are time-barred in Louisiana by its one-year
prescriptive period. See Id. at p. 2. However,
Plaintiff argues that he could pursue his claims in the MDNC,
which would apply North Carolina's three-year
prescriptive period. See Id. at p. 3. In his Reply,
Plaintiff also argues that the Court's transfer of this
case to the WDLA should have been done pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1631, and that, to the extent the Court transferred the case
under 28 U.S.C. 1406(a) only, it did so in error. Defendant
argues that Plaintiff's Motion is untimely; Plaintiff
waived any argument that venue is improper in the WDLA; and
transfer to the MDNC would be futile. See
Defendant's Response, doc. #49.