-TEM Western Surety Company v. Marco Enterprises, Inc. et al, No. 2:2011cv00408 - Document 20 (E.D. Va. 2011)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION re 4 MOTION to Change Venue, the Motion is GRANTED. Thiscase is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Alexandria Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Signed by District Judge Rebecca Beach Smith and filed on 9/22/2011. (rsim)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division WESTERN SURETY COMPANY, Plaintiff, CIVIL NO. v. MARCO et ENTERPRISES, 2:llcv408 INC., al., Defendants MEMORANDUM ORDER This Venue case comes the United to District of defendants, For the before Virginia, Marco reasons States Marco Enterprises, Fagon, on contracts South also July Inc., 20, performed Dakota located by South Maryland corporation, Maryland. Donna P. its 2011, with its its for Transfer the Eastern Donna P. of the Seaton-Fagon. is GRANTED. History Company, brought president, to The P. a Seaton- plaintiff place place against construction of Enterprises, principal is suit Donna three principal Marco Seaton-Fagon to ("Motion"), Enterprises. Dakota. with and relating Marco corporation, in Surety and Motion Court the Motion Procedural Western a Division Inc., forth herein, plaintiff, on District Enterprises, set court Alexandria I. The the of citizen is business Inc., is business of a a in Maryland. Diversity jurisdiction plaintiff amount is in The court part occurred fl ECF breached 1 two its or that § 1332, as the and the of the this because underlying the Virginia. relating in in plaintiff located venue 1391, omissions The in § defendants U.S.C. District 19. located the complaint 28 events one U.S.C. a PL's that alleges Am. the three separate Virginia in to Beach, Virginia, District of Columbia. See id. 8. The August ripe defendants 17, for 2011. filed The their Motion is The defendants 1404 (a) and witnesses, Local in action have whether to claims Transfer Venue and therefore pursuant to is on now might the have been grant of to Motion the a any motion two brought convenience justice, other brought." following been Analysis "For civil might conduct 3. interest where must to unopposed, their the any deciding bring Rule transfer it Motion decision. II. § from contracts projects, other in Eastern No. 28 $75,000. under the within 5, construction the of under diverse alleged appropriate defendants and completely plaintiff substantial Compl. proper controversy exceeds is claim is in to 28 a the district U.S.C. transfer § court or "MD this may In court whether forum; and division 1404 (a). venue, transferee U.S.C. of parties district inquiries: 28 and the (2) whether and v. the interest witnesses Lee, 482 Microtek The justify F. Supp. Int'l, of Division to first 250 the convenience that Supp. 2d citing Va. the the action the provides the Va. have Koh v. 2003)). on the the Alexandria the However, could Inc. largest the proper been court first place. in 3 (C) of and suit. Tax, argument proximity parties (quoting (E.D. their counsel, underlying Division 630 the JTH 2007) 627, of the of forum.'" (E.D. entirety whether Rule to witnesses, project the Alexandria and 735 F. criteria, assess Local 731, likely construction must 2d spend these justice transfer Inc., defendants second of brought basis for in this determination: Civil actions district well. also The an the venue shall venue as A reads civil to action wherein 28 in § § et as seq. in purpose of to lay 1391 "judicial the this division the which terms U.S.C. 1391 proper U.S.C. replaced with 3 (C) § For in division, venue, et seq. district" term "division." 1391 (a), the applicable follows: diversity in the 28 the proper U.S.C. filed. in if as of provided where 28 division stated Rule proper in be proper were is the determine construed be Local rule to rules and "district" Applying rules shall the venue in brought apply action determining which be venue shall which for shall by any the citizenship law, be defendant same part rise claim the property that situated, or of (2) the a the is founded except only if a in all or or a subject [division] in otherwise [division] defendants in the any reside which omissions which on a substantial of only as (1) [division] events occurred, is (3) may, brought resides, State, substantial to jurisdiction a giving part action of is defendant is subject action action may transfer both Info. at statute, districts adjusted Services, under 28 to Alexandria Apr. is clear proper not defendants Fagon is Defs.' no a 28 to the or Alexandria service the corporation jurisdiction Equifax 24650, 3(C) non-diversity 28 Rule case not instance, 1391(a)(l), Venue 1, pleadings rise The the as it ECF Defs.' No. that "a to the appears and, it action may from is is in Supp. there issue the of subject commenced. of are the within concerned Beach and within pleadings USC the Seaton- part reside 28 venue occurred" Virginia under P. Second, at the because substantial in Inc., First, Donna claim in to therefore, Mem. 5. contracts division, anywhere the Virginia; See lie and, § within 1391(a) properly U.S.C. Maryland.1 time § unavailable. Alexandria resides the first Enterprises, in did U.S.C. is outside Division, at be v. Local 1404(a) giving Marco venue the Division. occurred to LEXIS Dist. a of version reside of omissions Defendant U.S. in need Mullins (construing venue references not 28 both in located in § Transfer Alexandria projects in under citizen Mot. the does Cf. 2006 2006) that U.S.C. not indications events 1 do the already therefore 3(C). proper time [division] 1404(a), 3:05CV888, substituted Division, under § Rule at no be brought. and 28, is 1391(b)). is transfer U.S.C. No. this it otherwise Local determine Applying case, to § there divisions, Va. U.S.C. jurisdiction if 28 LLC, (E.D. similarly this and pursuant *9-*13 personal commenced, which the The to is § to the the that 1391(c), a personal District of additional Columbia, concerned Norfolk Division, venue. The a U.S.C. § 1404(a) U.S.C. § 1404 (b) Mullins Equifax *14 motion to Defs.' 2 Section 1404(b) motion, any motion division within is in a the proper which transfer However, any underlying Beach, therefore, to Transfer Venue Services, that consent suit or the § or or LLC, this under transfer 1404(b) 1, 28 under ECF No. 2006 U.S. of opposition another 28 4; Dist. cf. LEXIS party to a inapplicable). pending of stipulation proceeding hearing discretion which three Division a provide states: action, the Mot. Info. (noting any not improper. transfer venue made Upon the Virginia is that is proper, 2 as all of the parties agree to the See at be of Norfolk brought," would alleged One in the Division been transfer.3 v. thus are id. project and have facts See Alexandria "might 24650, no connections. contracts case and thereof, the other may court, any to of a be from of all civil parties, nature or transferred, in the division division in the in same district. Thus, suit under could § 1404(b), have been the defendants brought in the would not transferee need to show the division. 3 The court is perplexed as to why the defendants did not seek transfer this case under does 28 not U.S.C. oppose § 1404(b), transfer. given that the plaintiff in For case the is United foregoing hereby TRANSFERRED States Virginia. District The Memorandum Clerk Order to transfer of the case It is SO reasons, to Court is counsel the the Motion Alexandria for DIRECTED for is the to the Alexandria the to GRANTED. Division Eastern send parties a of the District of copy and This to of effect this the Division. ORDERED. ^ Rebecca Beach Smith United States District Judge Rebecca Beach Smith United StatesDistrict Norfolk, September Virginia ^& < 2011 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.