United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
S. CAYER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MATTER is before the Court on “Defendant's
Motion to Transfer Venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404, ”
Doc. 8, filed on October 16, 2019 as well as the parties'
associated briefs and exhibits. See Docs. 9-10.
matter has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and is now ripe for
fully considered the arguments, the record, and the
applicable authority, the Court denies
Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue as discussed below.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
case involves a five-year commercial lease agreement entered
into by the parties in April 2014. Plaintiff alleges
Defendant breached the agreement by failing to pay rent and
other charges, failing to construct washroom facilities,
abandoning the premises, and terminating the lease prior to
the end of the term. Defendant filed counterclaims alleging
that its actions were justified as a result of
Plaintiff's breach of the agreement. The agreement does
not contain a forum selection clause. Plaintiff is a Canadian
corporation existing under the laws of the state of
Washington. Defendant is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the state of Texas. Plaintiff originally
filed suit in Mecklenburg County Superior Court and Defendant
removed the case to this Court based upon diversity
has moved pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer
this matter to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas for the convenience of the parties
and witnesses and in the interests of justice. In support of
its Motion, Defendant argues that the case involves two
foreign corporations who will both have to travel regardless
of the venue. Defendant also maintains that its witnesses are
all located in Texas.
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court may “[f]or
the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of
justice, ... transfer any civil action to any other district
or division where it might have been brought.” The
question of transfer under section 1404(a) is committed to
the sound discretion of the district court. See Stewart
Org. Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988);
Brock v. Entre Computer Ctrs., Inc., 933 F.2d 1253,
1257 (4th Cir.1991).
section 1404, the Court must first determine whether the case
could have been brought in the transferee district. Venue is
proper in a civil action “in the judicial district in
which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents
of the State in which the district is located.” 28
U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). Defendant is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the state of Texas.
Therefore, venue would be proper in the Northern District of
venue in the transferee court is proper, as it is here, the
Court must then consider the following factors in determining
whether the matter should be transferred:
(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, if obtained; (7) the relative
advantages and obstacles to a fair trial; (8) other practical
problems that make a trial easy, expeditious, and
inexpensive; (9) the administrative difficulties of court
congestion; (10) the interest in having localized
controversies settled at home and the appropriateness in
having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at
home with the state law that must govern the action; and (11)
the avoidance of unnecessary problems with conflict of laws.
Scholl v. Sagon RV Supercenter, LLC, 249 F.R.D. 230,
239 (W.D. N.C. 2008). See also Jim Crockett Promotions
Inc. v. Action Media Group Inc., 751 F.Supp. 93 (W.D.
N.C. 1990). In this case, Defendant has “the burden of
persuasion and must show (1) more than a bare balance of
convenience in [its] favor and (2) that a transfer does more
than merely shift the inconvenience.” Datasouth
Computer Corp. v. Three Dimensional Tech. Inc., 719
F.Supp. 446, 451 (W.D. N.C. 1989). Courts should make both a
quantitative and a qualitative analysis of the factors.
McDevitt & Street Co. v. Fidelity and Deposit
Co., 737 F.Supp. 351, 354 (W.D. N.C. 1990).