Andrews v. Pryor Giggey Company, No. 1:2013cv00835 - Document 12 (N.D. Ala. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The court GRANTS 8 MOTION to Change Venue Motion to Transfer Venue to Eastern Division of the Northern District of Alabama filed by Pryor Giggey Company; the above-entitled case is TRANSFERRED to the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Alabama. Signed by Judge William M Acker, Jr on 6/14/13. (SAC )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Andrews v. Pryor Giggey Company Doc. 12 FILED 2013 Jun-14 PM 04:21 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION WALTER ANDREWS, Plaintiff, v. P-G INDUSTRIES, INC., PRYOR GIGGEY CO., Defendant. } } } } } } d/b/a } } } } CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-AR-0835-S MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Walter Andrews, had a perfect right to file his above-entitled Title VII action in the Southern Division of the Northern District of Alabama, where it now resides. 2000e-5(f)(3). 42 U.S.C., § He could have filed it in Mobile in the Southern District of Alabama, under this expansive venue statute. Although venue is proper in the Southern Division of the Northern District of Alabama, the action could have just as easily been brought in the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Alabama. Because both parties reside in the Eastern Division, with the only contact to the Southern Division being the location of the lawyers, this court balances the factors in 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and finds that for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice , the case should be transferred to the Eastern Division. Accordingly, the motion of defendant, P-G Industries, Inc., d/b/a Pryor Giggey Co., to transfer the case is Dockets.Justia.com GRANTED, and the above-entitled case is TRANSFERRED to the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Alabama. DONE this 14th day of June, 2013. _____________________________ WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
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.
