Aetna Life Insurance Company v. Methodist Hospitals of Dallas d/b/a Methodist Medical Center and Charlton Medical Center, No. 4:2013cv03412 - Document 29 (S.D. Tex. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting/mooting in part 15 MOTION to Dismiss 5 Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc., Defendant Methodist-Dallas' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Under Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and in the Alternati MOTION to Change Venue to Northern District of Texas - Dallas Division, mooting 16 MOTION to Dismiss 5 Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc., Defendant Texas Health Resour ces' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Under Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and in the Alt MOTION to Change Venue to Northern District of Texas - Dallas Division. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified.(rosaldana, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Aetna Life Insurance Company v. Methodist Hospitals of Dallas d/b/a Me...and Charlton Medical Center Doc. 29 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § Plaintiff, v. METHODIST HOSPITALS OF DALLAS d/b/a Methodist Medical Center and Charlton Medical Center, TEXAS HEALTH RESOURCES, and MEDICAL CENTER EAR, NOSE & THROAT ASSOCIATES OF HOUSTON, P.A. , Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-13-3412 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In this declaratory judgment action, Insurance Company ("Aetna") state-law claims of (collecti vely, and preempted by ERISA. Complaint Under Procedure, and Hospitals Health of Dallas ( "THR" ) Resources under the Texas Prompt Pay Act are Pending before the court are the Defendant Motion Rule in Methodist Texas "Defendants") Methodist-Dallas' seeks a determination of whether the defendants ("Methodist-Dallas") plaintiff Aetna Life to Dismiss 12 (b) (3) the of the Alternative, Pursuant to 28 USC §1406 or §1404(a) Plaintiff's Federal Motion to First Rules Amended of Civil Transfer Venue ("Methodist-Dallas's Motion") (Docket Entry No. 15) and Defendant Texas Health Resources' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Under Rule 12(b) (3) Dockets.Justia.com of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and in the Alternative, Motion to Transfer Venue ("THR's Motion") Pursuant to 28 USC (Docket Entry No. 16). §1406 or §1404 (a) For the reasons explained below, Methodist-Dallas's Motion will be granted in part, and this case will be transferred to the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). I. Aetna brought Procedural History this declaratory Methodist-Dallas on November 19, judgment 2013. 1 action against On November 20, 2013, Aetna filed an amended complaint adding THR and Medical Center Ear, Nose & Throat Associates of Houston, P.A. ("Medical Center ENT") as defendants.2 Medical Center ENT filed a motion to dismiss Aetna's claims against it on December 9, 2013. 3 Methodist-Dallas's Motion and THR's Motion were filed on December 9, 2013, seeking dismissal under Rule 12 (b) (3) or, in the alternative, to transfer venue under either Rule 1406 or 1404(a).4 On the same date, Defendants also filed a motion to abstain and a 1Plaintiff Aetna Life Insurance Company's Original Complaint, Docket Entry No.1. 2Plaintiff Aetna Life Insurance Company's First Amended Complaint ("First Amended Complaint"), Docket Entry No.5. 3Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Against Defendant Medical Center ENT, Docket Entry No. 12. 4Methodist-Dallas's Motion, Docket Entry No. 15; THR's Motion, Docket Entry No. 16. -2- joint Rule motion with 12 (b) (7) .5 ENT Center Medical Aetna filed a motion for to dismiss under summary judgment on December 27, 2013. 6 Aetna filed responses to each of Defendants' motions on December 30, 2013. 7 Replies and a joint response to Aetna's Motion for Summary Judgment were filed on January 13, 2014. 8 On 5Joint Motion of Defendants Methodist-Dallas and Texas Health Resources for the Court to Abstain from Exercising Jurisdiction and to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Against Them ("Joint Motion to Abstain"), Docket Entry No. 13; Joint Rule 12 (b) (7) Motion to Dismiss Aetna's Cases Against Defendants MethodistDallas, Texas Health Resources and Medical Center ENT, Docket Entry No. 14. 6Plaintiff Aetna Life Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment ( "Aetna's Mot ion for Summary Judgment"), Docket Entry No. 17. 7Plaintiff Aetna Life Insurance Company's Response to Joint Motion to Abstain from Exercising Jurisdiction and to Dismiss First Amended Complaint [Dkt#13], Docket Entry No. 18; Plaintiff Aetna Life Insurance Company's Response to Medical Center ENT's Motion to Dismiss [Dkt#12], Docket Entry No. 19; Plaintiff Aetna Life Insurance Company's Response to Defenda:nts' Motions to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b) (3) and Alternatively to Transfer Venue [Dkt#15 & #16] ("Response"), Docket Entry No. 20; Plaintiff Aetna Life Insurance Company's Response to Joint Rule 12 (b) (7) Motion to Dismiss [Dkt#14], Docket Entry No. 21. BDefendant Medical Center ENT's Reply to Plaintiff Aetna Life Insurance Company's Response to Medical Center ENT's Motion to Dismiss, Docket Entry No. 22; Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b) (3), and Alternatively to Transfer Venue ("Reply"), Docket Entry No. 23; Defendants' Reply to Plaintiff Aetna Life Insurance Company's Response to Joint Rule 12(b) (7) Motion to Dismiss, Docket Entry No. 24; Defendants' Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Joint Motion to Abstain from Exercising Jurisdiction and to Dismiss First Amended Complaint, Docket Entry No. 25; Defendants' Response to Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket Entry No. 26. -3- January 17, 2014, the Medical Center ENT.9 court dismissed Aetna's claims against Aetna filed an "omnibus sur-response to the Defendants' various replies" on January 27, 2014. 10 II. Under 1404 (a), § witnesses, in the Applicable Law " [f] or interest the of convenience justice, a of parties district and court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have considering a § been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). 1404 motion to transfer, a district court considers a number of private- and public-interest factors, can be said to be of dispositive weight.'" Rentals Inc., No. Jan. 2014) (quoting Action Indus.! 3, H-13-1112, Corp., 358 F.3d 337, 340 factors are: "When 2014 WL Wells v. Abe's Boat 29590, at Inc. v. U.S. (5th Cir. 2004)). 'none of which *1 (S.D. Fid. & Tex. Guar. The private-interest "(I) 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 for willing witnesses; and (4) all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, 90r der Dismissing Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Against Defendant Medical Center ENT, Docket Entry No. 27. l°Plaintiff Aetna Life Insurance Company's Sur-Response to Joint Motion to Abstain from Exercising Jurisdiction and to Dismiss First Amended Complaint [Dkt#13], Joint Rule 12(b) (7) Motion to Dismiss [Dkt#14], and Motions to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b) (3) and Alternatively to Transfer Venue [Dkt #15 & #17], Docket Entry No. 28, p. 2 (court's page numbering at top right). -4- expeditious and inexpensive." 203 (5th Cir. 2004) In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, [hereinafter In re Volkswagen I] Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 102 (citing Piper s. Ct. 252, 258 n.6 (1981)); see also Atlantic Marine Const. Co., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Tex., 134 S. factors are: court Ct. " (1) 568, 581 n.6 (2) the local interests decided at home; (3) the the that The public-interest the administrative difficulties flowing from congestion; law (2013). will govern interest in having localized the familiarity of the forum with case; and (4) the avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws [or in] the application of foreign law." "weigh the In re Volkswagen I, 371 F. 3d at 203. relevant factors and decide whether, The court must on balance, a transfer would serve 'the convenience of parties and witnesses' and otherwise promote 'the interest of justice.'" S. Ct. at 581 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § Atlantic Marine, 134 1404(a)). "The [c]ourt must also give some weight to the plaintiff['s] choice of forum." Norwood v. party Atlantic Marine, 134 S. Ct. at 581 n.6 (citing Kirkpatrick, seeking Volkswagen of 75 S. the transfer Am., Inc., Ct. " 'must 545 F.3d [hereinafter In re Volkswagen II] context of § 544, 546 (1955)). show good 304, (en banc) 315 Thus, cause.'" (5th Cir. In the re 2008) "When viewed in the 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 , [f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of -5- justice. "' movant Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. demonstrates that the § 1404 (a)). transferee venue Thus, is "[w]hen the clearly more convenient" than the venue chosen by the plaintiff, the district court should grant the Id.; transfer. see also Wells, 2014 WL 29590, at *1. III. Analysis "The preliminary question under the change of venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1404, is whether the suit originally in the destination venue." (S.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2014). A. been filed Wells, 2014 WL 29590, at *1 Because both defendants reside in the Northern District of Texas, f i 1 e d in that dis t ric t . could have this suit could have originally been See 2 8 U. S . C. § 13 91 (b) (1) . The Private-Interest Factors 1. The Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof Methodist-Dallas has submitted the affidavit of Charles Brizius, a Senior Vice-President of Methodist Hospitals of Dallas. 11 The affidavit states that "[a] 11 of the billing and remit data involving Aetna Health, Inc. is maintained in the Northern District of Texas by employees working in Dallas" and that "the witnesses and files of Methodist Dallas" are located in Dallas, Texas. 12 THR llDeclaration of Charles Brizius ("Brizius Affidavit"), Exhibit A to Joint Motion to Abstain, Docket Entry No. 13-1. 12Id. at 6 ~ 20; see also Methodist-Dallas's Motion, Docket Entry No. 15, p. 10 ~ 37. -6- has submitted the affidavit of James D. Logsdon, the Vice-President of Revenue Cycle Operations for THR.13 The affidavit states that "[a]ll the billing and remit data involving Aetna Health, Inc. is maintained in the Northern District of Texas, by employees working in the DFW metroplex" and that "the witnesses and files of THR are located" in Arlington, Texas. 14 Aetna argues that any evidence offered, such as the billing and remit data referenced in Defendants' motions, "will be stored, transmitted, and accessed electronically" and "can be readily transmitted to and accessed in this District without additional cost to Defendants. ,,15 However, whether the evidence in this case "will be stored, transmitted, and accessed electronically" will not negate a conclusion that the location of Defendants' files weighs in favor of transfer. 153, 2013 WL 5486763, See In re Toa Technologies, Inc., No. 13at *2 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2013) ("[T]he district court assigned substantial weight to the fact that 'the vast majority of the Defendant's documentation is[ ]stored electronically' and that this digital information is 'effectively stored everywhere, However, including the Eastern District of Texas [.] , this does not negate the significance of having trial 13Declaration of James D. Logsdon ("Logsdon Affidavit"), Exhibit B to Joint Motion to Abstain, Docket Entry No. 13-2. l4Id. at 5 ~ 14; see also THR's Motion, Docket Entry No. 16, pp. 7-8 ~ 26. 15Response, Docket Entry No. 20, p. 5. -7- closer to where TOA's physical documents and employee notebooks are located. The critical inquiry 'is relative ease of access, absolute ease of access.'" 285, 288 (5th Cir. 2013))). employees are not (quoting In re Radmax, Ltd., 720 F.3d Because Defendants' data, files, and located in the Northern District of Texas, this factor weighs in favor of transfer. 2. The Availability of Compulsory Process to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses "Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (as recently amended), this Court may enforce a subpoena issued to any nonparty witness in the State of Texas to appear at trial, party does not incur substantial expense." provided the Ingeniador, LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc., No. 2:12-CV-00805-JRG, 2014 WL 105106, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2014) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (c) (1) (B)) . "The Fifth Circuit has, in the past, distinguished between the power to compel a nonparty witness's attendance at trial and 'absolute' subpoena power, which appears to require that a [c]ourt be able to enforce subpoenas of nonparty witnesses for deposition as well as trial. " Id. (citing In re Volkswagen I I, 545 F. 3d at 316). In order to have absolute subpoena power, there must "exist [ a] point that is both within the district (and thus subject to the [c]ourt's subpoena power) and within 100 miles of the nonparty's location (and thus not subject to a motion to quash)." has Id. "A venue that 'absolute subpoena power for both deposition and trial' favored over one that does not." is Thomas Swan & Co. Ltd. v. Finisar -8- Corp., No. 2:13-CV-178-JRG, 2014 WL 47343, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2014) (quoting In re Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 316) Defendants suggest that they may call certain employees as witnesses. 16 Given that all of the hospitals owned by Defendants are in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, even if there is a point within the Southern District of Texas that is less than 100 miles from where some of Defendants' witnesses reside, 17 it is likely that the Northern District of Texas would have absolute subpoena power over all of Defendants' witnesses. Furthermore, compulsory process in the Northern District of Texas is likely to be more convenient. See Ingeniador, 2014 WL 105106, at *2 ("[T]he convenience of compulsory process is also a consideration in this factor. Thus, the existence of an inconvenient location that is available for compulsory process will weigh less strongly than the 16Methodist-Dallas's Motion, Docket Entry No. 15, p. 10 ~ 37; THR's Motion, Docket Entry No. 16, pp. 7-8, ~ 26; Reply, Docket Entry No. 23, p. 7; Brizius Affidavit, Exhibit A to Joint Motion to Abstain, Docket Entry No. 13-1, pp. 2-3 ~~ 4-7, p. 6 ~ 20; Logsdon Affidavit, Exhibit B to Joint Motion to Abstain, Docket Entry No. 13-2, p. 3 ~~ 4-5, p. 5 ~ 14. The court notes that Defendants have made reference to a number of physicians "who are not employed [by Defendants] but are members of the medical staff" at their hospitals. Brizius Affidavit, Exhibit A to Joint Motion to Abstain, Docket Entry No. 13-1, pp. 2-3 ~~ 4-5. 17Methodist-Dallas acknowledges that 8 of its 6,346 employees "list their residence in the Southern District of Texas." Brizius Affidavit, Exhibit A to Joint Motion to Abstain, Docket Entry No. 13-1, p. 3 ~ 7. THR acknowledges that 21 of its 20,654 employees "list their residence in the Southern District of Texas." Logsdon Affidavit, Exhibit B to Joint Motion to Abstain, Docket Entry No. 13-2, p. 3 ~ 5. -9- existence of a convenient location." (internal citation omitted) (citing In re Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 316)). Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of transfer. 3. The Cost of Attendance for Willing Witnesses Defendants allege that all of their witnesses are located in either Dallas or Arlington, Texas .18 The court takes judicial notice that this courthouse is approximately 225 miles from the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas. "'When the distance between an existing venue for trial of a matter and a proposed venue under 1404(a) is more than 100 miles, the factor § of inconvenience to witnesses increases in direct relationship to the additional distance to be traveled.'" In re Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 316 (quoting In re Volkswagen I, Furthermore, "it is an 'obvious 371 F.3d at 204-05). conclusion' convenient for witnesses to testify at home." In re Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 205). that it is more Id. at 317 (quoting Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of transfer. 4. All Other Practical Problems That Make Trial of a Case Easy, Expeditious and Inexpensive Aetna argues that because one of the attorneys copied on Methodist-Dallas's demand letter resides in the Southern District 18Methodist-Dallas's Motion, Docket Entry No. 15, p. 10 ~ 37; THR's Motion, Docket Entry No. 16, pp. 7-8, ~ 26; Brizius Affidavit, Exhibit A to Joint Motion to Abstain, Docket Entry No. 13-1, pp. 2-3 ~~ 4-7, p. 6 ~ 20; Logsdon Affidavit, Exhibit B to Joint Motion to Abstain, Docket Entry No. 13-2, p. 5 ~ 14. -10- "no burden will result to Defendants or their putative witnesses" if the case is not transferred. 19 Defendants respond that the identified attorney "is neither a witness to be called to testify nor the Attorney-In-Charge for these defendants."2o The court is not convinced that the residence of Methodist-Dallas's attorney, whom Defendants describe as "co-counsel cc'd on a pre-suit claims letter" should weigh either for or against transfer. Accordingly, this factor is neutral. B. The Public-Interest Factors 1. The Administrative Congestion Difficulties " [W] hen considering this factor, Flowing from Court \ the real issue is not whether [transfer] will reduce a court's congestion but whether a trial may be speedier in another court because of its less crowded docket.'" Siragusa v. Arnold, No. 3:12-CV-04497-M, (N.D. Tex. Sept. 16, 2013) 2013 WL 5462286, at *7 (quoting USPG Portfolio Two, LLC v. John Hancock Real Estate Fin., Inc., No. 3:10-CV-2466-D, 2011 WL 1103372, at *5 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2011)). Accordingly, courts often consider the median time interval from case filing to disposition in analyzing this factor. See id.i ExpressJet Airlines, Inc. v. RBC Capital Markets Corp., No. H-09-992, 2009 WL 2244468, at *12 (S.D. 19Response, Docket Entry No. 20, pp. 4-5i see also Methodist Hospitals of Dallas and Aetna Pre-Arbitration Demand, Exhibit C to Plaintiff Aetna Life Insurance Company's Original Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1-3. 2°Reply, Docket Entry No. 23, p. 8. -11- Tex. July 27, 2009). The median time between filing and disposition in the Southern District of Texas is 7.2 months, while it is 6.5 months in the Northern District. 21 "This difference in disposition time weigh is negligible transfer. 1/ and does not in favor of or against ExpressJet, 2009 WL 2244468, at *12 (concluding that a difference of 2.2 months between districts did not weigh either in favor or against transfer). 2. Accordingly, this factor is neutral. The Local Interest in Having Localized Interests Decided at Home "A district court 'has a strong interest in adjudicating a case involving harm' to an entity within its district.1/ 2013 WL 5462286, *13). at *7 (quoting ExpressJet, Siragusa, 2009 WL 2244468, at This is a declaratory judgment action relating to the harm caused to Defendants by Aetna's alleged failure to comply with the Texas Prompt Pay Act. 22 "Methodist -Dallas Texas,I/23 and "THR resides in Arlington, is based in Dallas, Texas. 1/24 The contracts 21See Fed. Court Mgmt. Statistics, United States District Courts-National Judicial Caseload Profile (2013), available at http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/Statistics/FederalCourtManagemen tStatistics/2013/district-fcms-profiles-september-2013.pdf. 22See First Amended Complaint, Docket Entry No.5, p. 3 ~~ 6-7, pp. 4-8 ~~ 15-36, pp. 9-10 ~~ 45-46. 23Methodist-Dallas's Motion, Docket Entry No. 15, pp. 1-2 ~ 1; see also Brizius Affidavit, Exhibit A to Joint Motion to Abstain, Docket Entry No. 13-1, p. 2 ~ 3. 24THR's Motion, Docket Entry No. 16, p. 5 ~ 15; see also Logsdon Affidavit, Exhibit B to Joint Motion to Abstain, Docket Entry No. 13-2, p. 3 ~ 4. -12- were entered into and payments made in the Northern District of Texas. 25 3. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of transfer. The Familiarity of Govern the Case the Forum with the Law that Will Aetna argues that federal law governs this case because the Texas Prompt Pay Act is preempted by ERISA. 26 this case is governed by Texas law. 27 Defendants argue that In either case, neither this court nor the Northern District of Texas is more or less familiar with the law that will govern this case. Therefore, this factor is neutral. 4. The Avoidance of Unnecessary Problems of Conflict of Laws or in the Application of Foreign Law Because there are no conflict of laws issues that would make this case better suited for either this court or the Northern District of Texas, this factor cannot weigh either for or against transfer. C. Accordingly, this factor is neutral. Conclusion Weighing the relevant factors, the court finds that four factors weigh in favor of transfer and four factors are neutral. 25Brizius Affidavit, Exhibit A to Joint Motion to Abstain, Docket Entry No. 13-1, p. 5 ~ 16, p. 6 ~ 18i Logsdon Affidavit, Exhibit B to Joint Motion to Abstain, Docket Entry No. 13-2, p. 4 ~~ 10, 12. ~~ 26First 37-46. Amended Complaint, Docket Entry No.5, pp. 8-10 27Joint Rule 12 (b) (7) Motion to Dismiss Aetna's Cases Against Defendants Methodist-Dallas, Texas Health Resources and Medical Center ENT, Docket Entry No. 14, pp. 3-5 ~~ 5-8. -13- Accordingly, the court concludes that Defendants have met their burden of "demonstrat ring] that the transferee venue is clearly more convenient" than the venue chosen by Aetna, and this case will be transferred. In re Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 315. IV. Transferee Court Methodist-Dallas seeks transfer of this case to the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas, 28 while THR seeks transfer to the Fort Worth Division of the Northern District of Texas. 29 Methodist Dallas and THR reside, wi tnesses" are located, and their "files and in Dallas and Arlington, respectively. 30 The court takes judicial notice that Arlington is between Dallas and Fort Worth, approximately thirteen miles from the Fort Worth Division courthouse and approximately eighteen miles Dallas Division courthouse. from the Since Methodist-Dallas is in Dallas and THR is not far from Dallas, the court concludes that it would be more inconvenient for Methodist-Dallas to litigate in the Fort Worth Division than it would be for THR to litigate in the Dallas Division. Furthermore, the court takes judicial notice that 28Methodist-Dallas's Motion, Docket Entry No. 15, p. 10 , 40. 29THR's Motion, Docket Entry No. 16, p. 8 , 29. 30Methodist-Dallas's Motion, Docket Entry No. 15, pp. 1-2 , I, p. 10 , 37; THR's Motion, Docket Entry No. 16, p. 5 , 15, pp. 7-8 , 26; Brizius Affidavit, Exhibit A to Joint Motion to Abstain, Docket Entry No. 13-1, p. 2 , 3, p. 6 , 20; Logsdon Affidavit, Exhibit B to Joint Motion to Abstain, Docket Entry No. 13-2, p. 3 , 4, p. 5 , 14. -14- attorneys in the Dallas-Fort Worth region often practice in both the Dallas and Fort Worth divisions. The court declines to sever the case prior to transfer out of a concern that doing so could result in duplicative litigation and a waste of judicial resources. See Harris Cnty., Tex. v. CarMax Auto Superstores Inc., 177 F.3d 306, 319 (5th Cir. 1999) ("'As between federal district courts, . the general principle is to avoid duplicative litigation.'" (quoting West Gulf Maritime Association v. ILA Deep Sea Local 24, 751 F.2d 721 (5th Cir. 1985))); Bhd. of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v. Cent. of Georgia Ry. Co., 411 F.2d 320, 325 n.10 (5th Cir. 1969) (" 'The economic waste involved in duplicating litigation is obvious.'" (quoting Crosley Corp. v. Hazeltine Corp., 122 F.2d 925, 930 (3d Cir. 1941))); cf. Houston Trial Reports, Inc. v. LRP Publications, Inc., 85 F. Supp. 2d 663, 671 (S.D. Tex. 1999) ("Conservation of judicial resources is a primary consideration. This factor favors transfer of venue if transfer would enable different cases involving the same parties or issues to be heard in a single forum."). Therefore, Dallas's Motion in part Division § of the and Northern the court will grant Methodist- transfer District of this case Texas to under the Dallas 28 U.S.C. 1404 (a) . v. Conclusions and Order For the reasons explained in § III above, the court concludes that the Northern District of Texas is clearly a more convenient -15- venue than this court. the court For the reasons explained in § IV above, concludes that of the transferee courts proposed by Defendants, the Dallas Division is relatively more convenient than the Fort Worth Division. Defendant Methodist-Dallas' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Under Rule 12(b) (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and in the Alternative, Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 USC §1406 or §1404 (a) (Docket Entry No. 15) is therefore GRANTED IN PART, and this case is TRANSFERRED to the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Because the court has granted Methodist-Dallas's Motion under § 1404 (a), the remainder of Methodist -Dallas's Motion transfer under § 1406 or to dismiss under Rule 12(b) (3) seeking is MOOT. For the same reason, Defendant Texas Health Resources' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Under Rule 12(b) (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Motion to Transfer Venue Procedure, and in the Al ternati ve, Pursuant to 28 USC §1406 or §1404 (a) (Docket Entry No. 16) is MOOT. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 27th day of January, 2014 . ./ SIM LAKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -16-
]]>
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.
