Eliserio v. Floydada Housing Authority

• Citation: 388 F.Supp.2d 774
• Decision Date: 16 July 2005
• Docket Number: No. CIV.A. L-05-04.,CIV.A. L-05-04.
• Parties: Graciela ELISERIO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FLOYDADA HOUSING AUTHORITY Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

388 F.Supp.2d 774

Graciela ELISERIO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FLOYDADA HOUSING AUTHORITY Defendant.

No. CIV.A. L-05-04.

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Laredo Division.

July 16, 2005.

Linley Rebecca Boone, Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid Inc, Weslaco, TX, Robert W Doggett, Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid Inc, Austin, TX, Lakshmi Ramakrishnan, Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, Weslaco, TX, for Graciela Eliserio, Jose Eliserio, Argelio Garza, Armandina Garza, Plaintiffs.

Charlotte Bingham, Crenshaw Dupree et al, Lubbock, TX, for Floydada Housing Authority, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

KAZEN, District Judge.

Pending is Defendant Floydada Housing Authority's Motion to Transfer Venue. (Doc. No. 12.) On March 24, 2005, the Court ordered Plaintiffs and Defendant to supplement their submissions in light of In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir.2004). The parties have responded. (Doc. Nos. 16, 18, & 19.)

Factual Background

Plaintiffs are migrant farm workers whose permanent residences are in the Southern District of Texas. Plaintiffs Graciela Eliserio and Jose Eliserio reside in the Laredo Division, and Plaintiffs Argelio Garza and Armandina Garza reside in the McAllen Division.

Defendant Floydada Housing Authority (FHA) is a government entity that owns and operates low-income housing in Floyd County, Texas, in the Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division. Defendant does not operate outside Floyd County and its principal offices are in Floydada, Texas.

From June to October 2004, Plaintiffs rented and occupied housing units at Defendant's housing facility in Floydada. In January 2005, Plaintiffs filed a complaint with this Court alleging Defendant provided housing that fails to meet federal and state safety and health standards in violation of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA), a federal statute. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1872 (1999). Plaintiffs filed suit under the AWPA's private cause-of-action provision. See § 1854. They also filed claims under Texas state law for violations of their leases and the Texas Habitability Statute.

On February 25, 2005, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue and Motion to Transfer Venue. Plaintiffs responded on March 9, 2005. (Doc. No. 13.) On April 15, 2005, the Court denied the Motion to Dismiss, because venue in Laredo is proper. (Doc. No. 14.) It determined that Lubbock, the division to which Defendant seeks transfer, would also be a proper venue. The Court now considers the parties' supplemental briefing on this issue.

Discussion

Defendant argues that the action should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division, in the interests of justice, because venue here is inconvenient. "For 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." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (2004).

The movant bears the burden of demonstrating that the Court should transfer the case. Holmes v. Energy Catering Servs., LLC, 270 F.Supp.2d 882, 886 (S.D.Tex.2003). The decision to transfer a case rests within the sound discretion of the Court, id., and such decisions are reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d at 203.

Under In re Volkswagen AG, the determination of convenience turns on a number of private and public interest factors, none of which are given dispositive weight.¹ Id. The private concerns include: (1) relative case of access to sources of proof; (2) the availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses; (3) the cost of attendance for willing witnesses; and (4) all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive. Id. The public concerns include: (1) the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; (2) the local interest in having localized interests decided at home; (3) the familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case; and (4) the avoidance of unnecessary conflict-of-law problems involving application of foreign law. Id.

Although In re Volkswagen does not mention it, the Plaintiffs' choice of forum is an additional factor to be considered, but in and of itself is neither conclusive nor determinative. In re Horseshoe Entm't, 337 F.3d 429, 434 (5th Cir.2003).

Private Interest Factors

Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof

Defendant argues that a Lubbock venue would provide easier access to several sources of proof.

First, Defendant argues that "witnesses, experts, or even jurors" could more easily access the Floydada housing facility if venue were in Lubbock. The facility is located less than sixty miles from Lubbock, and access to it is arguably important because the primary issue in the case is its living conditions. However, Defendant does not explain why venue would have any bearing on the ability of all interested parties to visit the facilities before trial. Nor do they explain why a jury would likely visit the facility. Indeed, Plaintiffs indicate that they will rely on photographs to prove the facility's conditions. Defendant offers no reason why it would be unable to do the same.

Second, Defendants claim that its records would be more easily accessed if venue were in Lubbock. However, "[w]hen considering a motion to transfer venue, the location of books and other records is usually given little weight, unless the documents are so voluminous that their transport is a major undertaking." Gonsalez Moreno v. Milk Train, Inc., 182 F.Supp.2d 590, 598 (W.D.Tex.2002) (citations and internal quotations omitted). Defendants make no showing that the transport of its records would be a major undertaking.

Finally, all of Defendant's witnesses reside in the Northern District, a factor addressed below.

Availability of Compulsory Process to Secure Witnesses

Defendant argues that compulsory process would be unavailable to secure attendance of three witnesses in the Southern District. The witnesses are all employees of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) who inspected the FHA facilities at issue. Defendant believes that they are a "source of a significant amount of information making the basis of Plaintiffs' suit."

A subpoena may be served "at any place within the district of the court by which it is issued, or at any place without the district that is within 100 miles of the place of the deposition, hearing, trial, production or inspection." FED. R. CIV. P. 45(b)(2). The USDA witnesses live in or near Lubbock and work out of Lubbock, more than 100 miles outside the Southern District (Doc. No. 18, Ex. A.). However, Defendant fails to explain how the witnesses would help its case. See Dupre v. Spanier Marine Corp., 810 F.Supp. 823, 825 (S.D.Tex.1993).² Plaintiffs have alleged that USDA notified Defendant of safety and health violations, which Defendant has failed to repair or remedy. If so, these witnesses might be at least as beneficial to Plaintiffs.

Moreover, Plaintiffs observe that there is no reason to believe that these witnesses would be unwilling to attend a trial in this District, given that the USDA has an interest in FHA's compliance with housing standards. Further, compulsory process may be available to secure the witnesses at trial, even if they must travel more than 100 miles from the place where they live or work, if the trial is within the same state as such places. FED. R. CIV. P. 45(c)(3)(A)(ii). However, such a subpoena may be subject to an order to quash, if a nonparty would "incur substantial expenses to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial."³ FED. R. CIV. P. 45(c)(3)(B)(iii). Finally, the witnesses could be compelled to attend a pretrial deposition conducted somewhere within the 100-mile limit. FED. R. CIV. P. 45(b)(2).

The Cost of Attendance of Willing Witnesses

Defendant plans to call five of its employees at trial, all of whom reside in Floyd County and make up FHA's total staff. The witnesses would provide testimony as to Plaintiffs' complaints, the care and maintenance of the units Defendant owns and operates, and the "financial aspects of the FHA which bear directly on Plaintiffs' complaints." (Doc. No. 18, Ex. A.) Defendant claims that the travel expenses for all FHA employees to travel to and testify in Laredo would be a "serious financial burden." Id.

"When the distance between an existing venue for trial of a matter and a proposed venue ... is more than 100 miles, the factor of inconvenience to witnesses increases in direct relationship to the additional distance to be traveled." In re Volkswagen, 371 F.3d at 204-205. Defendant's witnesses would have to travel over 500 miles more to Laredo than if trial were in Lubbock, resulting in increased travel time, meal and lodging expenses, and time away from work and home. See id. at 205.

In addition, Defendant claims it would have to "virtually shut down" its office if trial were in Laredo, thus harming its efficient operation. (Doc. No. 18, Ex. A.) Because all five of Defendant's employees would be needed at trial, Defendant would be left without staffing during this time. The parties estimate that trial would last one week. (Doc. No. 21.) However, it is doubtful that all employees would be needed at all times during trial.

Plaintiffs respond that Defendant's costs of attendance of willing witnesses must be weighed against Plaintiffs' costs. Plaintiffs plan to call fourteen nonparty witnesses who are migrant workers and who lived in FHA housing, as well as family members who were present at the time that Plaintiffs lived in FHA housing. Their testimony is relevant "because each and every family or individual encountered various problems and violations that differed from others."⁴ (Doc. No. 16 at 2.) Also, the testimony is necessary for "establishing a time period for when violations occurred ... and whether the FHA took any action to remedy these problems at any time." Id....