Broshears v. Napolitano, No. 2:2012cv00174 - Document 33 (E.D. Ky. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1) Pltf's motion to transfer 15 is DENIED. The hearing set for 4/4/2013 is CANCELLED. Signed by Judge William O. Bertelsman on 3/21/2013.(ECO)cc: COR
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY NORTHERN DIVISION AT COVINGTON CIVIL ACTION NO. 2012-174 (WOB-JGW) SCOTT BROSHEARS VS. PLAINTIFF MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JANET ANN NAPOLITANO, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security DEFENDANT This matter is before the Court on plaintiff s motion to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. (Doc. 15). Although this motion is presently set for oral argument, on review the Court concludes that oral argument is unnecessary. The federal statute governing venue transfer provides in relevant part: For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The Supreme Court has stated that 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) gives a district court discretion to grant or deny a motion to transfer on an individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness. Stewart Org., Inc., v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (citation omitted). A two-part test transfer is proper. assists courts in determining when Murty Pharm., Inc., v. Akorn, Inc., Civil Action No. 5:06-83-JMH, 2006 WL 3193431, at *1 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 2, 2006). First, the Court must determine whether the action could have been brought originally in the transferee court. Id. Second, the Court must decide whether a change of venue would serve the interests of justice and facilitate the convenience of the parties and witnesses. Id. Defendant correctly contends that this action could not have been brought in the Middle District of Florida. First, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) discusses bringing actions in the judicial district in which the defendant resides. makes Plaintiff s change of residence to the This Middle District of Florida irrelevant to determining whether the suit could initially have been brought in that District. Further, it is clear that venue is proper in the Eastern District of Kentucky because Plaintiff alleges employment discrimination and retaliation the Greater Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport. See 28 § U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). 2 occurring at Even if venue were proper in the Middle District of Florida, the Court would still have to decide whether a change of venue would serve the interests of justice and facilitate the convenience of the parties and witnesses. Murty, 2006 WL 3193431, at *1. In this analysis, courts consider a number of factors, including: (1) convenience of the parties and witnesses, (2) accessibility of sources of proof, (3) costs of securing testimony from witnesses, (4) practical problems associated with trying the case in the least expensive and most expeditious fashion, (5) the interests of justice, and (6) the plaintiff s original choice of forum. Kentucky Speedway, LLC v. Nat l Ass n of Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., 406 F. Supp.2d 751, 755 (E.D. Ky. 2005) (citations omitted). First, Defendant is correct that, because this is a case in which plaintiff alleges employment discrimination and retaliation at the Greater Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, the majority of the potential witnesses are found in and around the Eastern District of Kentucky. It would not be convenient for those witnesses to travel to the Middle District of Florida. Further, Plaintiff claims only that himself, his counsel, and one 3 witness live in Florida. As such, this factor does not support transfer. Further, although the majority of documents are located in the Eastern District of Kentucky, documents can be transmitted via mail, email, or facsimile. This factor is thus not a significant concern and does not support transfer. The third transfer. factor Plaintiff witnesses work (Doc. 23-1). or also does concedes reside in not weigh that states in favor multiple across of potential the country. Consequently, the costs of securing testimony from witnesses while litigating in the Eastern District of Kentucky will not differ substantially from the cost of securing testimony while litigating in the Middle District of Florida. As such, this factor does not weigh in favor of transfer. Finally, ordinarily Speedway, chose claims. venue entitled 406 the plaintiff s F. Eastern to Supp.2d original choice considerable at District 755. of of forum weight. Plaintiff Kentucky to is Kentucky originally pursue his Plaintiff concedes that he now seeks to transfer primarily because he has moved to Accordingly, this factor does not support transfer. 4 Florida. In Kentucky sum, to Plaintiff pursue overwhelmingly U.S.C. 1404(a). chose this support the case, his Eastern and motion to no District other transfer of factors under 28 The motion will thus be denied, and the Court need not reach defendant s other arguments. Therefore, having reviewed this matter, and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff s (Doc. 15) be, and is hereby, DENIED. motion 5 transfer The hearing set for April 4, 2013, be, and is hereby, CANCELLED. This 21st day of March, 2013. to
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
