Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Link v. Pennsylvania State Police

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division

June 19, 2015

BRANDOM PATRICK LINK, Plaintiff,
v.
PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE; TODD A. ADAMSKI; LIBERTY TRANSPORTATION, INC.; JOSEPH HUTH; MARC PALLA; and LANDMARK LEASING, INC. Defendants.

ORDER

FRANK D. WHITNEY, District Judge.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants Landmark Leasing, Inc. ("Landmark"), Joseph Huth, Liberty Transportation, Inc. ("Liberty"), and Marc Palla's (collectively "Moving Defendants") Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, Or, Alternatively, Motion to Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. (Doc. No. 17). For the reasons that follow, the Motion to Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania is GRANTED.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In July 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, alleging various causes of action against Defendants that arose out of his employment with Liberty and his arrest on January 10, 2013. On November 17, 2014, the Honorable Cathy Bissoon granted Plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of that case. Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed the present action in this Court on November 19, 2014.

On May 18, 2015, the Moving Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, or, Alternatively, to Transfer Venue. Defendants' motion, (Doc. No. 17), has been fully briefed by the parties and is now ripe for review.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under 28 U.S.C. ยง 1404(a), "[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought." District courts have discretion to adjudicate motions for transfer based on notions of fairness and convenience. See Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 23 (1988).

In exercising this discretion, the Court determines whether the case should be transferred for the convenience of the parties, witnesses, and in the interest of justice. To make this determination, this Court applies a balancing test and considers various factors in deciding whether transfer is appropriate. Jim Crockett Promotions, Inc. v. Action Media Grp., Inc., 751 F.Supp. 93 (W.D. N.C. 1990). The factors to be considered include:

1. The plaintiff's initial choice of forum;
2. The residence of the parties;
3. The relative ease of access of proof;
4. The availability of compulsory process for attendance of witnesses and the costs of obtaining attendance of willing witnesses;
5. The possibility of a view;
6. The enforceability of a judgment, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.