United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
ORDER AND REASONS
the Court is Defendant Shell Chemical LP-Geismar Plant's
(“Defendant Shell”) “Motion to Dismiss for
Improper Venue or, alternatively, to Transfer Venue”
(Rec. Doc. 15) and Plaintiff Leah Amedee's
(“Plaintiff”) “Response in
Opposition” (Rec. Doc. 16). Also before the Court is
Defendant Shell's Motion for Leave to File Reply (Rec.
Doc. 18). For the reasons provided below, IT IS
ORDERED that Defendant Shell's Motion for Leave
to File Reply is GRANTED and Defendant
Shell's proposed pleading (Rec. Doc. 18-2) shall be filed
into the record.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Shell's Motion
to Dismiss or in the alternative Transfer Venue (Rec. Doc.
15) is DENIED insofar as it seeks to dismiss
Plaintiff's claims for improper venue and
GRANTED insofar as it seeks to transfer
Plaintiff's case to the Middle District of Louisiana.
Plaintiff's FMLA claim is hereby
TRANSFERRED to the Middle District of
Louisiana pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and
Plaintiff's ADA claim TRANSFERRED to the
Middle District of Louisiana pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1406(a), where venue is proper on all claims.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
filed a pro se Complaint against Defendant Shell in
October 2017. Rec. Doc. 1. Subsequent to enrolling highly
competent counsel, she filed an amended complaint on January
30, 2018. Rec. Doc. 7. Plaintiff's complaint alleges two
causes of action: 1) a claim under the Family Medical Leave
Act of 1993 (“FMLA”), and 2) a claim pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(“ADA”). Rec. Doc. 7). In relevant part,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Shell failed to provide her
with requested seating to accommodate her chronic back
condition, as well as wrongful termination while she was on
protected leave. Id. at 3-4.
pro se, Plaintiff originally filed this case in the
Eastern District of Louisiana. Rec. Doc. 16 at 5-6. Defendant
Shell now moves this Court to transfer this case to the
Middle District of Louisiana. Rec. Doc. 15. Defendant Shell
contends that Plaintiff's claims arise exclusively out of
her employment with Defendant Shell at its Geismar facility,
located in the Middle District of Louisiana. Rec. Doc. 15.
complaint makes allegations pursuant to FMLA and the ADA. As
a result we analyze venue under both statutes respectively.
Venue requirements pursuant to a FMLA claim are set forth
under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The statute contains a
general venue provision, delineating that:
A civil action may be brought in-
(1) a judicial district in which any
defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the
State in which the district is located;
(2) a judicial district in which a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to
the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is
the subject of the action is situated; or
(3) if there is no district in which an
action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section,
any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to
the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such
28 U.S.C.A. § 1391 (2011).
the FMLA claim is governed by general venue principles while
her ADA claim is governed by special venue provisions set
forth in Title VII. See In re HorseshoeEntm't, 337 F.3d 429, 432 ...