Leach v. Bell Helicopter Division of Textron Co.

Full title: DIANNA L. LEACH, Plaintiff, v. BELL HELICOPTER DIVISION OF TEXTRON…

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

Date published: Mar 31, 2009

Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-1712-O (N.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2009)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-1712-O.

March 31, 2009

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

REED O'CONNOR, District Judge

Before the Court is Defendant Bell Helicopter Division of Textron Corporation's ("Bell Helicopter") Motion to Transfer Venue (Doc. # 5). Having reviewed the motion and the applicable law, the Court finds that Defendant's motion should be and is hereby GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

II. LEGAL STANDARD

28 U.S.C. § 1404See Id. Id. 28 U.S.C. § 1404In re Volkswagen of Am. Inc. 545 F.3d 315see also In re Horseshoe Entm't 337 F.3d 429434-35In re Volkswagen of Am. Inc.545 F.3d at 315Id.28 U.S.C. § 1404 28 U.S.C. § 124Id.28 U.S.C. § 1391 Id.

Next, Defendant has the burden to demonstrate that the Fort Worth Division is clearly more convenient than the Dallas Division. This means that Defendant must show good cause by demonstrating that the transfer is "[f]or the convenience of the parties, in the interest of justice." In re Volkswagen of Am. Inc., 545 F.3d at 314. "When the transferee forum is no more convenient than the chosen forum, the plaintiff's choice should not be disturbed. When the transferee forum is clearly more convenient, a transfer should be ordered." Id.

Here, Defendant contends:

It is undisputed that the alleged claims arose in Hurst, where Bell is located and where Plaintiff worked. Bell has no operations in Dallas, Texas. (Harrington's Declaration ¶ 8). In fact, Bell is unaware of anything in the Dallas Division that is even marginally related to this litigation. Most of the sources of proof are located in Tarrant County. (Harrington's Declaration ¶ 4-6). Most of the witnesses, including Plaintiff, work and/or reside in the Fort Worth area. (Harrington's Declaration ¶ 5). Most of the documentary proof is in Hurst. (Harrington's Declaration ¶ 6). Finally, the citizens of the counties in the Dallas Division have no concrete interest in the resolution of this action between a Fort Worth resident and a Hurst business. Def. Mot., p. 5.

Based on this evidence, the Court finds, after considering all of the public and private factors, the interests of justice are best served if this case is transferred to the Fort Worth Division for the convenience of the parties and witnesses. See In re Volkswagen of Am. Inc., supra.

IV. CONCLUSION

The Court has found that the division to which Defendant seeks to transfer this case, the Fort Worth Division, is one where this civil action "might have been brought" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1404. Additionally, after analyzing the factors outlined by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), the Court finds that the Fort Worth Division is a proper forum for this lawsuit. Finally, Defendant has met its burden to show that the Fort Worth Division of the Northern District of Texas is clearly the more convenient forum for the parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue (Doc. # 5) is hereby GRANTED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division.

SO ORDERED.