Roten v. Werst et al, No. 1:2009cv00036 - Document 4 (W.D. Va. 2009)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 2 Motion to Change Venue. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 4/15/09. (Callahan, Sharon)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ABINGDON DIVISION SARAH LYNN ROTEN, Plaintiff, v. TAYLOR CARTER WERST, ET AL., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:09CV00036 OPINION AND ORDER By: James P. Jones Chief United States District Judge ) ) C. Eugene Compton, C. Eugene Compton, P.C., Lebanon, Virginia, for Plaintiff; Eric S. Jensen, Jensen & Associates, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Defendants. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, the defendants Motion to Transfer Venue will be denied. This case began in the state Circuit Court of Russell County, Virginia, where the plaintiff originally filed suit against the defendants for injuries resulting from an automobile accident that occurred in Roanoke County, Virginia. Roanoke County is located in this judicial district. The defendants removed the case to this court based on diversity of citizenship, and now seek transfer to the Roanoke Division of this court, claiming improper venue under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1391(a) (West 2006). That statute does not preclude venue here, however, since it refers only to judicial districts, not divisions. A state action must be removed to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1441(a) (West 2006). The Abingdon Division of the Western District of Virginia embraces the state Circuit Court of Russell County, where the plaintiff originally filed suit. Thus, venue here is proper, regardless of whether venue under state law was not. See Hollis v. Florida State Univ., 259 F.3d 1295, 1300 (11th Cir. 2001)(stating that it is immaterial [to federal venue] that venue was improper under state law when the action was originally filed ). Although their present motion will be denied, the defendants may still move for a transfer for convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, under 28 U.S.C.A § 1404 (West 2006), if they show proper grounds. For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that the defendants Motion to Transfer Venue is DENIED. ENTER: April 15, 2009 /s/ JAMES P. JONES Chief United States District Judge -2-
]]>
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.
