Purdy v. Munden, 2:04-CV-369.
| Decision Date | 09 February 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:04-CV-369.,2:04-CV-369. |
| Parties | Karen Sue PURDY and Archie Purdy, Individually and as Next Friends of Alan Pirtle, Destany Stark and Jeremy Don Scott, II and as Representatives of the Estate of Rebekah Purdy, Plaintiffs, v. Billy Ray MUNDEN, Snow Creek Trucking Company, Inc. and Southland Transportation Company, Inc., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas |
John Hatchett Carney, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiffs.
Andrew Tucker Fifield, Stradley & Wright, Dallas, TX, for Defendants.
Before the Court is Defendants Billy Ray Munden ("Munden"), Snow Creek Trucking Company, Inc., and Southland Transportation Company, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue or, in the Alternative, Motion to Transfer Venue (Docket # 4). Having considered the parties written submissions and oral arguments, the Court DENIES the motion to dismiss and GRANTS the motion to transfer. The Court transfers venue, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), from the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division to the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The Court also VACATES its order made during oral argument dismissing Munden from the case.
On July 26, 2003, Jeremy Don Scott ("Scott") experienced a tire blow-out while driving an automobile on Interstate 20 near Balch Springs, Texas in the Northern District of Texas. The blow-out caused Scott to lose control of the automobile and careen across the freeway. The automobile was hit by the corporate Defendants' tractor-trailer, driven by Munden. Scott, and his passenger, Rebekah Purdy ("Purdy"), died from injuries sustained in the accident. This wrongful death suit was brought in diversity on behalf of Purdy's estate by the statutory beneficiaries of her and Scott. Plaintiffs reside in Texas. Defendants reside in North Carolina.
"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). The first determination to be made under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is whether the claim could have been filed in the judicial district to which transfer is sought. In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 203 (5th Cir.2004). If so, under section 1404(a), a court examines "the convenience of the parties and witnesses." Id. The convenience determination involves examining several private and public interest factors, none of which are given dispositive weight. Id. The private factors include: (1) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (2) the availability of the compulsory process to secure witnesses' attendance; (3) the willing witnesses' cost of attendance; and (4) all other practical problems that make the case's trial easy, expeditious, and inexpensive. Id. The public factors include: (1) the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; (2) the local interest in having local issues decided at home; (3) the forum's familiarity with the governing law; and (4) the avoidance of unnecessary conflict of law problems involving foreign law's application. Id. A court should also consider the plaintiff's forum choice, but the plaintiff's forum choice by itself is not conclusive or determinative. In re Horseshoe Entm't, 337 F.3d 429, 434 (5th Cir.2003); Z-Tel Communications, Inc. v. SBC Communications, Inc., 331 F.Supp.2d 567, 571 (E.D.Tex.2004) (Folsom, J.). A court must consider these factors in light of all the claims alleged in the case and not restrict its analysis to only the plaintiff's claims. In re Volkswagen, 371 F.3d at 204.
The parties do not dispute this claim could have been brought in the Northern District of Texas since the underlying accident occurred there, so the Court will now consider the private and public factors.
This case only involves only claims of negligence, not product liability. In negligence cases, the investigators and accident-scene witnesses likely to be called to testify at trial generally reside close to the scene of the accident. The evidence critical to establishing, and defending, negligence claims is generally found at or near the scene of the accident. Here, the police officer who investigated the accident is from the Balch Springs Police Department. Five of the six accident-scene witnesses listed in his report reside in the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas.1 The sixth witness resides in the Tyler Division of the Eastern District of Texas, but his residence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Empty Barge Lines II v. Dredge Leonard Fisher
...Stores E., Inc., Civ. No. 2:05-CV-478, 2006 WL 20780, at *1 (E.D.Tex. Jan. 4, 2006); Salinas, 358 F.Supp.2d at 570; Purdy v. Munden, 356 F.Supp.2d 658, 659 (E.D.Tex. 2005). In admiralty matters, venue "is broader than districts, not narrower." Richoux v. R & G Shrimp Co., 126 F.Supp.2d 1007......
-
Ray Mart, Inc. v. Stock Building Supply of Texas
...Stores E., Inc., Civ. No. 2:05-CV-478, 2006 WL 20780, at *1 (E.D.Tex. Jan. 4, 2006); Salinas, 358 F.Supp.2d at 570; Purdy v. Munden, 356 F.Supp.2d 658, 659 (E.D.Tex. 2005). In the case at bar, the parties do not dispute that venue is proper and that the case could have been brought in the W......
-
Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc. v. D-Link Corp.
...17, February 22, 2005 (Davis, J.) (transferring a personal-injury case to the district where the accident occurred); Purdy v. Munden, 356 F.Supp.2d 658 (E.D.Tex.2005) (transferring a negligence personal-injury case to the district where the accident occurred). Products-liability cases are l......
-
Dulaney v. U.S.
...did not arise in the forum and the proposed transferee forum was the primary site of material events). See also Purdy v. Munden, 356 F.Supp.2d 658, 660 (E.D.Tex.2005) (noting that "[t]he evidence critical to establishing, and defending, negligence claims is generally found at or near the sc......