Casanola v. Delta Machine & Ironworks LLC et al, No. 2:2018cv09377 - Document 27 (E.D. La. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS - The 20 Motion to Dismiss, filed by Defendant Delta Machine & Ironworks LLC, is DENIED IN PART WITH PREJUDICE to the extent Defendant moves to dismiss for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedur e and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant may reurge the motion once the case is transferred. FURTHER ORDERED that the 26 motion to transfer venue, filed by Plaintiff Sergio Casanola under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) be CONSTRUED as a motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that this case is TRANSFERRED to the MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/10/19.(sbs)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Casanola v. Delta Machine & Ironworks LLC et al Doc. 27 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A SERGIO CASAN OLA, Plain tiff CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N O. 18 -9 3 77 D ELTA MACH IN E & IRON W ORKS LLC, ET AL., D e fe n d an ts SECTION : “E” ( 5 ) ORD ER AN D REAS ON S Before the Court is a m otion to dism iss, filed by Defendant Delta Machin e & Ironworks LLC (“Delta”) pursuant to Rules 12(b)(3) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and a m otion to transfer venue, filed by pro se Plaintiff Sergio Casanola under 28 U.S.C. § 140 6(a). 1 Casanola opposes Delta’s m otion to dism iss. 2 For the reasons that follow, the Court D EN IES W ITH PREJU D ICE the portion of Defendant’s m otion to dism iss filed under Rule 12(b)(3) and D EN IES W ITH OU T PREJU D ICE the portion of Defendant’s m otion to dism iss filed under Rule 12(b)(6). The Court construes Plaintiff’s m otion to transfer venue as a m otion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 140 4(a) and GRAN TS the m otion. The Court orders that the above-captioned case is TRAN SFERRED to the MID D LE D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A. BACKGROU N D Delta is a steel fabrication com pany in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 3 Plaintiff Sergio Casanola worked at Delta from October 12, 20 15 to March 9, 20 16, when he was term inated. 4 He brings this suit against Delta under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1 R. Doc. 20 . R. Doc. 26. 3 R. Doc. 1 at 10 , R. Doc. 20 -1 at 1. 4 R. Doc. 1 at 10 , R. Doc. 20 -1 at 1. 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1964 (“Title VII”), 5 alleging Delta discrim inated against him on the basis of race and national origin. 6 On March 20 , 20 19, Delta filed the instant m otion to dism iss. 7 It argues the Court should dism iss this case for im proper venue under Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the Eastern District of Louisiana is an im proper venue for this action. 8 It also argues the Court should dism iss this case under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim . 9 Casanola opposes. 10 Casanola also files a m otion to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 140 6(a). 11 LAW AN D AN ALYSIS I. Th e Co u rt d e n ie s D e lta’s m o tio n to d is m is s u n d e r Ru le 12 ( b) ( 3 ) . “Title VII contains a specific venue provision that displaces the general venue provision set out in 28 U.S.C. § 1391.”12 The Title VII venue provision provides: [A]n action [under Title VII] m ay be brought in any judicial district in the State in w hich the unlaw ful em ploy m ent practice is alleged to have been com m itted, in the judicial district in which the em ploym ent records relevant to such practice are m aintained and adm inistered, or in the judicial district in which the aggrieved person would have worked but for the alleged unlawful em ploym ent practice, but if the respondent is not found within any such district, such an action m ay be brought within the judicial district in which the respondent has his principal office. For purposes of sections 140 4 and 140 6 of Title 28, the judicial district in which the respondent has his principal office shall in all cases be 5 42 U.S.C. §§ 20 0 0 e– 20 0 0 e-17. R. Doc. 1 at 3– 4. 7 R. Doc. 20 . 8 R. Doc. 20 -1 at 2– 3. 9 Id. at 2– 8. 10 R. Doc. 26. 11 Id. at 12. 12 Allen v. U.S. Dep't of Hom eland Sec., 514 F. App’x 421, 422 (5th Cir. 20 13) (un published) (citin g Pinson v. Rum sfeld, 192 F. App’x 8 11, 817 (11th Cir.20 0 6) (“The venue provisions of § 20 0 0 e-5(f)(3) were intended to be the exclusive venue provisions for Title VII em ploym ent discrim ination actions and . . . the m ore general provisions of § 1391 are not controlling in such cases.”); Tucker v. U.S. Dept. of Arm y , 42 F.3d 641 (5th Cir. 1994)). 6 2 considered a district in which the action m ight have been brought. 13 In this case, the unlawful em ploym ent practice is alleged to have occurred in Louisian a. 14 Because venue is proper in “any judicial district in the State in which the unlawful em ploym ent practice is alleged to have been com m itted,”15 venue in this case is proper in the Eastern District of Louisiana. As a result, the Court denies Delta’s m otion to dism iss for im proper venue under Rule 12(b)(3). II. Th e Co u rt co n s tru e s Cas an o la’s m o tio n to tran s fe r ve n u e a s a m o tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S.C. § 14 0 4 ( a) . The Court turns to Casanola’s m otion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 140 6(a). 16 28 U.S.C. §§ 140 4(a) and 140 6(a) apply to Title VII claim s. 17 Section 140 6(a) provides for dism issal or transfer for cases “laying venue in the wrong division or district.”18 Casanola m oves for transfer under § 140 6(a). 19 Because venue was not im proper in this case, § 140 6(a) does not apply. 20 28 U.S.C. § 140 4(a) provides that, even in cases in which venue was proper, “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court m ay transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it m ight have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.”21 “[T]he purpose of the section is to prevent the waste ‘of tim e, energy and m oney’ and ‘to protect litigants, 13 42 U.S.C. § 20 0 0 e-5(f)(3) (em phasis added). R. Doc. 1 at 10 . 15 42 U.S.C. § 20 0 0 e-5(f)(3). 16 R. Doc. 26 at 12. 17 See Allen, 514 F. App’x at 422. 18 28 U.S.C. § 140 6(a). 19 R. Doc. 26 at 12. Delta m oves for dism issal under the sam e provision. R. Doc. 20 -1 at 3. 20 See Atl. Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W . Dist. of Texas, 571 U.S. 49, 55 (20 13) (“Section 140 6(a) and Rule 12(b)(3) allow dism issal only when venue is ‘wron g’ or ‘im proper.’ Whether venue is ‘wrong’ or ‘im proper’ depen ds exclusively on whether the court in which the case was brought satisfies the requirem ents of federal ven ue laws.”). 21 28 U.S.C. § 140 4(a). 14 3 witnesses and the public again st unnecessary inconvenience and expense.’”22 The party seeking transfer “m ust show good cause. . . . [T]o show good cause m eans that a m oving party, in order to support its claim for a transfer, m ust satisfy the statutory requirem ents and clearly dem onstrate that a transfer is for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.”23 The Court construes Casanola’s m otion to transfer venue as a m otion under 28 U.S.C. § 140 4(a). III. Th e Co u rt tran s fe rs ve n u e u n d e r 2 8 U .S.C. § 14 0 4 ( a) . Courts applying § 140 4(a) first determ ine “whether the judicial district to which transfer is sought would have been a district in which the claim could have been filed.”24 The Suprem e Court has held this refers to federal laws concerning venue and jurisdiction, not to “laws of the transferee State concerning the capacity of [the plaintiffs] to bring suit.”25 The court then considers a “num ber of private and public interest factors,” none of which is given dispositive weight, to determ ine whether transfer serves the convenience of the parties and witnesses. 26 A. Th is s u it co u ld h ave be e n file d in th e Mid d le D is trict o f Lo u is ian a. This suit could have been brought in the Middle District of Louisiana. A corporation, including a lim ited liability com pany like Delta, is subject to general personal jurisdiction in its “place of incorporation and principal place of business.”27 Delta is a 22 Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964) (quoting Continental Grain Co. v. Barge F.B.L.—585, 364 U.S. 19, 26 (1960 )). 23 In re Volksw agen of Am ., Inc., 545 F.3d 30 4, 315 (5th Cir. 20 0 8 ) [hereinafter Volksw agen II] (citation and internal quotation m arks om itted). 24 In re Volksw agen AG, 371 F.3d 20 1 (5th Cir. 20 0 4) [hereinafter Volksw agen I] (citing In re Horseshoe Entm ’t, 337 F.3d 429, 432 (5th Cir. 20 0 3)). 25 Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 624 (1964) 26 Id. (citations om itted). 27 Daim ler AG v. Baum an , 571 U.S. 117, 137 (20 14) (analyzing whether defendant LLC was subject to general jurisdiction in a state by analyzing whether it was incorporated in that state or had its principal place of busin ess there); cf. Carruth v. Michot, No. A-15-CA-189-SS, 20 15 WL 650 6550 , at *7 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 26, 20 15) (analyzing m inim um contacts of LLC defendants). 4 Louisiana lim ited liability com pany with its principal place of business in Louisiana. 28 The United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana has person al jurisdiction over Delta. Venue is proper in the Middle District of Louisiana because, under the Title VII venue provision, the District is a “judicial district in the State in which the unlawful em ploym ent practice is alleged to have been com m itted.”29 Moreover, Delta represents 30 the Middle District is also “the judicial district in which the em ploym ent records relevant to such practice are m aintain ed and adm in istered.”31 B. Tran s fe r s e rve s th e co n ve n ie n ce o f th e p artie s an d w itn e s s e s . 28 U.S.C. § 140 4(a) requires district courts to consider “the convenience of the parties and witnesses” in deciding whether to transfer venue. 32 In re Volksw agen AG enum erates several “private and public in terest factors, none of which are given dispositive weight.” 33 As private factors, the Fifth Circuit listed: (1) (2) (3) (4) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; the availability of com pulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses; the cost of attendance for willing witnesses; and all other practical problem s that m ake trial of a case easy, expeditious and in expensive. 34 As public factors, the court listed: (1) (2) (3) (4) the adm in istrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; the local interest in having localized interests decided at hom e; the fam iliarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case; and the avoidance of unnecessary problem s of conflict of laws of the application of foreign law. 35 28 R. Doc. 20 -2. 42 U.S.C. § 20 0 0 e-5(f)(3). 30 R. Doc. 20 -1 at 3. 31 42 U.S.C. § 20 0 0 e-5(f)(3). 32 28 U.S.C. § 140 4(a). 33 In re Volksw agen AG, 371 F.3d at 20 3 (citing Piper Aircraft Co. v. Rey no, 454 U.S. 235, 241 n .6 (1981)). 34 Id. 35 Id. 29 5 The Court finds the private concerns are n eutral or weigh in favor of transfer. With respect to the first factor, by Delta’s adm ission, all of the relevant docum ents and evidence are in Baton Rouge, in the Middle District of Louisiana. 36 With respect to the second factor, because Baton Rouge and New Orleans are less than 10 0 m iles apart, com pulsory process is available to secure the attendance of witnesses in either district. 37 With respect to the third factor, because Casanola was em ployed in Baton Rouge, the cost of attendance for willing witnesses would be lower if the case were tried in Baton Rouge. The Court is aware of no other relevant practical problem s from trial in either venue, and the parties cite none. The public factors also are neutral or weigh in favor of transfer. The parties have not indicated, and this Court is not aware of any difficulties from court congestion either in the Eastern District of Louisiana or in the Middle District of Louisiana. The Middle District of Louisiana has a stronger interest in having em ploym ent discrim ination issues relating to local em ployers decided at hom e. Both fora are equally fam iliar with the federal law governing the case, and the case would not raise conflicts of laws issues in either forum . Because the private and public factors are all neutral or weigh in favor of transfer, the Court transfers this case to the Middle District of Louisiana. The Court dism isses without prejudice Delta’s m otion to dism iss under Rule 12(b)(6), which Delta m ay reurge before the Middle District. 38 36 R. Doc. 20 -1 at 3. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide, “A subpoena m ay com m and a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition . . . within 10 0 m iles of where the person resides, is em ployed, or regularly transacts busin ess in person.” F ED. R. CIV. P. 45(c)(1)(A). 38 See Davidson v. Ascension Health Long-Term Disability Plan, No. 6:16-CV-193-RP, 20 17 WL 868 210 8, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 20 , 20 17) (transferring case and “defer[rin g] to the transferee court regarding Defendants' m otion to dism iss pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) regarding the substance of Plaintiff's claim s”); Busch v. Robertson, No. 3:0 5-CV-20 43-L, 20 0 6 WL 12220 31, at *7 (N.D. Tex. May 5, 20 0 6) (“[A]s the case 37 6 CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORD ERED that the m otion to dism iss, filed by Defendant Delta Machine & Ironworks LLC, be D EN IED IN PART W ITH PREJU D ICE to the extent Defendant m oves to dism iss for im proper venue under Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 39 IT IS FU RTH ER ORD ERED that the motion to dism iss, filed by Defendant Delta Machin e & Ironworks LLC, be D EN IED IN PART W ITH OU T PREJU D ICE to the extent Defendant m oves to dism iss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 40 Defendant m ay reurge the m otion once the case is transferred. IT IS FU RTH ER ORD ERED that the m otion to transfer venue, filed by Plaintiff Sergio Casanola under 28 U.S.C. § 140 6(a) be CON STRU ED as a m otion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 140 4(a) an d GRAN TED . 41 IT IS FU RTH ER ORD ERED that the above-captioned case is TRAN SFERRED to the MID D LE D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A. N e w Orle a n s , Lo u is ian a, th is 10 th d ay o f May, 2 0 19 . ________________________________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE is being transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia, the court declines to rule on Defendants’ respective m otions and am ended m otions to dism iss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).”). 39 R. Doc. 20 . 40 R. Doc. 20 . 41 R. Doc. 26. 7
]]>
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.
