Landers et al v. C R Bard Inc et al, No. 3:2020cv02632 - Document 25 (N.D. Tex. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER grants 17 Motion to Sever and Transfer Venue of Out-of-State Plaintiffs' Cases. The Court directs the Clerk of the Court to sever and transfer this action as follows: a. Plaintiff Katherine Bishop's ca se be severed and transferred to the Eastern Division of the Southern District of Mississippi (Civil case 3:20-cv-2628 opened); b. Plaintiff Linda Cattles's case be severed and transferred to the Charleston Division of the District of Sou th Carolina (Civil case 3:20-cv-2629 opened); c. Plaintiff Carol Gump's case be severed and transferred to the Tampa Division of the Middle District of Florida (Civil case 3:20-cv-2630 opened); d. Plaintiff Melvin Haley's case be severed and transferred to the Northern Division of the Southern District of Mississippi (Civil case 3:20-cv-2631 opened); e. Plaintiff Chelsea Jackson's case be severed and transferred to the Fort Lauderdale Division of the Southern District of Florida (Civil case 3:20-cv-2632 opened); f. Plaintiff Sharon Listul's case be severed and transferred to the Northern Division of the Middle District of Alabama (Civil case 3:20-cv-2633 opened); g. Plaintiff Annie Newton's case be severed and transferred to the Fort Lauderdale Division of the Southern District of Florida (Civil case 3:20-cv-2634 opened); and h. Plaintiff Dolores Wiedner's case be severed and transferred to the St. Paul Division of the District of Minnesota (Civil case 3:20-cv-2635 opened). Plaintiff Michael Landers is the sole plaintiff with any connection to this forum. Accordingly, he shall remain in the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas. (Ordered by Judge Karen Gren Scholer on 8/31/2020) (jmg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Landers et al v. C R Bard Inc et al Doc. 25 Case 3:20-cv-02632-S Document 25 Filed 08/31/20 Page 1 of 5 PageID 349 United States District Court NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION MICHAEL LANDERS et al. v. C.R. BARD INCORPORATED et al. § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-CV-1556-S MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This Order addresses Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Sever and Transfer Venue of Outof-State Plaintiffs’ Cases [ECF No. 17]. Defendants filed a Response to the Motion, stating that they do not oppose severance and transfer of the cases identified in the Motion. See ECF No. 22. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion. I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed this action in the state district court. See Notice of Removal Ex. D-2. Defendants timely removed the case to this Court based on diversity of citizenship. See Notice of Removal. Plaintiffs filed the pending Motion on August 3, 2020, which is now ripe and pending before the Court. II. SEVERANCE A court has broad discretion to sever issues under Rule 21, see Brunet v. United Gas Pipeline Co., 15 F.3d 500, 505 (5th Cir. 1994), and that discretion similarly allows for the severance and transfer of parties in the interest of justice, see Spencer, White & Prentis, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc., 498 F.2d 358, 361-62 (5th Cir. 1974). “In the situation where venue is proper for one defendant but not for another and dismissal is inappropriate, the district court . . . may sever the claims, retaining jurisdiction over one defendant and transferring the case as to the other defendant to an appropriate district.” Carnival Corp. v. Tug W.O. Watson, No. Civ. A. 02-2375, 2003 WL 943633, at *1 (E.D. La. Mar. 5, 2003) (citation omitted); see also Stewart v. Livingston, Civ. A. Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:20-cv-02632-S Document 25 Filed 08/31/20 Page 2 of 5 PageID 350 No. H-14-1483, 2014 WL 4975434, at *5 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 3, 2014) (citation omitted) (“The Court . . . has broad discretion to sever and transfer issues that should be tried in another district.”). Defendants agree with Plaintiffs’ request to sever the cases. Accordingly, the Court exercises its discretion and finds that severance of the out-of-state plaintiffs is in the interest of justice. III. TRANSFER A district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division in which it might have been brought for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, if such transfer is in the interest of justice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating that a transfer of venue is warranted for convenience purposes. See Time, Inc. v. Manning, 366 F.2d 690, 698 (5th Cir. 1966). The movant’s burden is to show “good cause” for transfer. In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008) (hereinafter, “Volkswagen II”). The Fifth Circuit explained: Th[e] good cause burden reflects the appropriate deference to which the plaintiff’s choice of venue is entitled. When viewed in the context of § 1404(a), to show good cause means that a moving party, in order to support its claim for a transfer, must satisfy the statutory requirements and clearly demonstrate that a transfer is for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The determination of venue transfer pursuant to § 1404(a) is within the district court’s sound discretion, exercised “in light of the particular circumstances of the case.” Hanby v. Shell Oil Co., 144 F. Supp. 2d 673, 676 (E.D. Tex. 2001) (citing Radio Santa Fe v. Sena, 687 F. Supp. 284, 287 (E.D. Tex. 1988))). In doing so, the court must balance the two categories of interest—private and public—to resolve whether the movant has carried his burden. Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 315 (citing Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947)). The private interest factors are: “(1) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (2) the availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses; (3) the cost of attendance 2 Case 3:20-cv-02632-S Document 25 Filed 08/31/20 Page 3 of 5 PageID 351 for willing witnesses; and (4) all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 204 (5th Cir. 2004) (hereinafter, “Volkswagen I”) (citing Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 241 n.6 (1981)). The public interest factors are: “(1) the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; (2) the local interest in having localized interests decided at home; (3) the familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case; and (4) the avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws of the application of foreign law.” Id. Plaintiffs request this Court to transfer the out-of-state plaintiffs to the jurisdictions in which they had surgery for the implantation of their Bard inferior vena cava filter. See Br. in Supp. of Mot. (“Br.”) 7. The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). With respect to the private and public interest factors, Plaintiffs assert that the outof-state plaintiffs have essentially no connection to the state of Texas. See Br. 8-9; Pls.’ App. They reside outside of Texas, they were not implanted with a Bard inferior vena cava filter in Texas, and essentially all of their medical treatment took place outside of Texas. See generally Br. In summary, none of the out-of-state plaintiffs have any connection whatsoever to the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas, based on the evidence presented to the Court. Plaintiffs also assert (and Defendants do not dispute) that the proposed transfer jurisdictions correspond with many of the out-of-state plaintiffs’ residences. See Mot. 1. Moreover, the out-of-state plaintiffs received at least some medical care in that jurisdiction. See id. Thus, the private and public interest factors weigh in favor of transfer, as (1) transfer will allow for ease of access to sources of proof; (2) medical provider witnesses should be accessible through service of process; (3) travel costs should be minimized; and (4) there is a local interest due to those plaintiffs’ residences. See Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 204. 3 Case 3:20-cv-02632-S Document 25 Filed 08/31/20 Page 4 of 5 PageID 352 The Court notes that while Defendants agree that Plaintiffs Linda Cattles’s (“Cattles”) and Carol Gump’s (“Gump”) cases should be severed and transferred, they assert that the record is insufficient to determine the appropriate states of transfer. See ECF No. 22. Regardless, the Court finds, and the record is undisputed, that Cattles resides in Cottageville, South Carolina, see Pls. App. 002, and that she received at least some medical treatment in Charleston, South Carolina, see id. at 010. Moreover, the Court finds, and the record is undisputed, that Gump resides in Zephyrhills, Florida, see id. at 002, and that she received at least some medical treatment in Zephyrhills, Florida, see id. at 013. Therefore, the Court finds that the public and private interest factors similarly weigh in favor of transfer with respect to Cattles and Gump. Defendants agree that Plaintiffs have identified the proper transferee districts for the remaining out-of-state plaintiffs. As a result, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have met their burden to clearly demonstrate that the proposed jurisdictions are more convenient forums for the parties and witnesses than the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 315. Accordingly, based on the agreement of counsel and the undisputed representations by Plaintiffs’ counsel, the Court GRANTS the Motion and directs the Clerk of the Court to sever and transfer this action as follows: a. Plaintiff Katherine Bishop’s case be severed and transferred to the Eastern Division of the Southern District of Mississippi; b. Plaintiff Linda Cattles’s case be severed and transferred to the Charleston Division of the District of South Carolina; c. Plaintiff Carol Gump’s case be severed and transferred to the Tampa Division of the Middle District of Florida; d. Plaintiff Melvin Haley’s case be severed and transferred to the Northern Division of the Southern District of Mississippi; 4 Case 3:20-cv-02632-S Document 25 Filed 08/31/20 Page 5 of 5 PageID 353 e. Plaintiff Chelsea Jackson’s case be severed and transferred to the Fort Lauderdale Division of the Southern District of Florida; f. Plaintiff Sharon Listul’s case be severed and transferred to the Northern Division of the Middle District of Alabama; g. Plaintiff Annie Newton’s case be severed and transferred to the Fort Lauderdale Division of the Southern District of Florida; and h. Plaintiff Dolores Wiedner’s case be severed and transferred to the St. Paul Division of the District of Minnesota. Plaintiff Michael Landers is the sole plaintiff with any connection to this forum. Accordingly, he shall remain in the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas. SO ORDERED. SIGNED August 31, 2020. 5
]]>
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.
