Ledoux v. Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc.
| Decision Date | 10 May 2002 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 101-CV-476. |
| Citation | 218 F.Supp.2d 835 |
| Parties | Preston LEDOUX and Wife, Deborah LeDoux Plaintiffs v. ISLE OF CAPRI CASINOS, INC. and Isle of Capri Casino-Lake Charles, Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas |
Charles Keith Kebodeaux, Beaumont, TX, for plaintiffs.
Stanley T. Proctor, John L. Schouest, Phelps Dunbar, Houston, TX, for defendants.
Before the court is Defendants' Motion to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) [Dkt. # 11], and the court having reviewed the motion and responses on file and having heard oral arguments on this matter is of the opinion that the motion be DENIED.
This case arises out of an incident that occurred on the defendants' riverboat casino in Lake Charles, LA, where Mr. LeDoux allegedly suffered injuries at the hands of the defendants' employees when they responded to a drunk and disorderly patron's outbursts. Preston LeDoux and his wife, Deborah (collectively "LeDoux"), are residents of Orange, TX, and have brought this negligence action against the Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc., Isle of Capri-Lake Charles, and the Grand Palais Riverboat, Inc. (collectively "Isle of Capri"). Deborah LeDoux has also brought a loss of consortium claim against the Isle of Capri. LeDoux originally filed suit in the 128th Judicial District Court, Orange County, Texas, and the Isle of Capri removed the case to federal court.
According to Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 84 S.Ct. 805, 11 L.Ed.2d 945 (1964), the goal of 28 U.S.C. § 1404 "is to prevent waste of time, energy, and money and to protect litigants, witnesses, and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense." Id. at 616, 84 S.Ct. 805. The decision to transfer venue under § 1404(a) is within the trial court's sound discretion. Jarvis Christian College v. Exxon Corp., 845 F.2d 523, 528 (5th Cir.1988).
"In determining whether an action should be transferred under § 1404(a), the court examines factors which fall into two groups: (1) those relating to the convenience of the litigants, and (2) those relating to the public interest in the fair and efficient administration of justice." In re Triton Ltd. Securities Litig., 70 F.Supp.2d 678, 688 (E.D.Tex.1999) (citing International Software Sys., Inc. v. Amplicon, Inc., 77 F.3d 112, 115 (5th Cir.1996); Walter Fuller Aircraft Sales v. Repub. of Philippines, 965 F.2d 1375, 1389 (5th Cir. 1992)).
Convenience of the litigants factors include: (1) the plaintiff's choice of forum; (2) the convenience of parties and witnesses; (3) the place of the alleged wrong (4) the location of counsel; (5) the cost of obtaining the attendance of witnesses; (6) the accessibility and location of sources of proof; and (7) the possibility of delay and prejudice if transfer is granted. Robertson v. Kiamichi Railroad Co., L.L.C., 42 F.Supp.2d 651, 655 (E.D.Tex.1999).
Public interest factors consist of (1) the administrative difficulties caused by court congestion; (2) the local interest in adjudicating local disputes; (3) the unfairness of burdening citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty; and (4) the avoidance of unnecessary problems in conflict of laws. Id.
The moving litigant seeking transfer bears the burden of demonstrating that a transfer of venue is warranted. Time, Inc. v. Manning, 366 F.2d 690, 698 (5th Cir.1966); see also Gundle Lining Construction Corp. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 844 F.Supp. 1163, 1165 (S.D.Tex.1994) (). In placing the burden on the moving litigant, courts have stated that the plaintiff's choice of forum should not be disturbed, unless the balance of factors strongly favors the defendant. Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947); Peteet v. Dow Chemical Co., 868 F.2d 1428, 1436 (5th Cir.1989); Mohamed v. Mazda Motor Corp., 90 F.Supp.2d 757, 771-74 (E.D.Tex.2000).
Thus, it is clear that the Isle of Capri has the burden of demonstrating that the above mentioned factors weigh in its favor, for this court to order the case transferred from Beaumont and the Eastern District of Texas to Lake Charles and the Western District of Louisiana, which lies approximately fifty-five miles east down Interstate-10.
As stated above, the plaintiff's choice of forum is given a great deal of deference in § 1404(a) analysis. Here, LeDoux chose to bring suit within the Eastern District of Texas, the federal district in which the plaintiffs live. This factor weighs in favor of the plaintiffs.
"Typically, the most important of the above factors is whether substantial inconvenience will be visited upon key witnesses should the court deny transfer." Mohamed, 90 F.Supp.2d at 774. As between party and non-party witnesses, the court is more concerned about the convenience of the forums to non-party witnesses. Id. The majority of non-party witnesses reside in either Beaumont, TX or Lake Charles, LA. If the trial is held in Beaumont, some of the witnesses will be a little less inconvenienced than others. If the trial is held in Lake Charles, the situation will be reversed. In either scenario, the court does not find that having to travel from Lake Charles to Beaumont or vice versa is a substantial inconvenience for anyone. The two cities are located less than an hour apart and are connected by Interstate-10. Party or non-party-we are talking about some people having to drive about an hour and some a little less. This factor does not favor either party.
The alleged wrong took place in Lake Charles, Louisiana, and thus, this factor weighs in favor of the Isle of Capri.
LeDoux's counsel is from Beaumont. The Isle of Capri's counsel is from Houston. A trial in Lake Charles would be less convenient for both side's attorneys. This factor weighs in favor of the plaintiffs.
The difference in cost between making witnesses attend trial in Beaumont or in Lake Charles is negligible. Again, for the most part we are talking about making some people have to drive about an hour to get to Beaumont. This factor does not favor either party.
The nature of this case does not lend itself to be document intensive. In fact, at oral arguments, LeDoux's counsel intimated that he has already received all the documents he will likely need to litigate this case. Regardless, Isle of Capri will need to transport any documents needed for trial somewhere-either to the Lake Charles federal courthouse or to the Beaumont federal courthouse. The difference in inconvenience from having to transport documents to one, rather than the other, is negligible.
Additionally, while the court is likely not going to visit the scene of the alleged tort during the trial, if it became necessary to do so, the logistics of moving the jury, court personnel, and parties to the scene from Beaumont would not be significantly more difficult than doing so from the Lake Charles federal courthouse. It would simply be about an hour more driving each way.
This factor is somewhere between neutral and slightly favoring the Isle of Capri.
This factor can only be neutral or in favor of the plaintiffs. Because it is early in litigation, the court will conclude that LeDoux will not be prejudiced by transfer. Thus, this factor is neutral.
Although neither party addressed this issue, this is a relatively simple case that should not require a lengthy trial. While this court maintains a full docket, this case will not overly burden its docket. This factor slightly favors the Isle of Capri.
Because the alleged wrong took place in Lake Charles, the people of the Western District of Louisiana certainly have an interest in adjudicating this dispute. At the same time, though, the court notes that the Isle of Capri advertises quite heavily in the Eastern District of Texas. This...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Empty Barge Lines II v. Dredge Leonard Fisher
...cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1157, 119 S.Ct. 2044, 144 L.Ed.2d 212 (1999); Shoemake, 233 F.Supp.2d at 829; LeDoux v. Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc., 218 F.Supp.2d 835, 836 (E.D.Tex.2002). "[T]he trial court must exercise its discretion in light of the particular circumstances of the case." Hanby v. ......
-
Ray Mart, Inc. v. Stock Building Supply of Texas
...cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1157, 119 S.Ct. 2044, 144 L.Ed.2d 212 (1999); Shoemake, 233 F.Supp.2d at 829; LeDoux v. Isle of Capri, Casinos, Inc., 218 F.Supp.2d 835, 836 (E.D.Tex.2002). "[T]he trial court must exercise its discretion in light of the particular circumstances of the case." Hanby v.......
-
Sendo Limited v. Microsoft Corporation, Civil Action No. 5:02CV282 (DF) (E.D. Tex. 2/20/2003)
...seeking the transfer bears a heavy burden of showing that the convenience factors favor transfer"); LeDoux v. Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc., 218 F. Supp. 2d 835, 837 (E.D. Tex. 2002) (same). To prevail, the moving litigant "must demonstrate that the balance of convenience and justice substant......
-
Anaya v. South-West Dist. of Bible Mission. Church
...location of sources of proof; and (7) the possibility of delay and prejudice if transfer is granted. See LeDoux v. Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc., 218 F.Supp.2d 835, 836-37 (E.D.Tex.2002). Additionally, courts consider certain factors relevant to the public interest, including: (1) the adminis......