Godines v. Johnson

E.D. Texas

Godines v. Johnson

DecidedAugust 23, 2023

Docket2:23-cv-00215

StatusUnknown

This text of Godines v. Johnson (Godines v. Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Godines v. Johnson, (E.D. Tex. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

BREANNA GODINES § Plaintiff, § § v. § Civil Action No. 2:23-CV-0215-JRG-RSP § SHELBY LOGISTICS, INC., et al. § Defendant. § §

MEMORANDUM ORDER Before the Court defendants Shelby Logistics, Inc. and Michael Lamont Johnson move to transfer this action to the Texarkana Division of this Court. Dkt. No. 7. In this personal injury case, plaintiff alleges that on June 30, 2021 she was struck from behind by Defendants’ tractor-trailer while she was stopped waiting to turn left into the driveway of her home in Titus County, Texas. Defendant seeks transfer pursuant to 28 USC § 1404(a) claiming that the suit was filed in the wrong division, and that suit should have been brought in the Texarkana Division. “Prior to its repeal in 1988, the divisional venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1393, had limited plaintiffs in multi-divisional districts to filing suit in the division where the defendant resided.” In re Gibson, 423 F. App'x 385, 388 (5th Cir. 2011). However, §1393 was repealed, and “plaintiffs [are] free to file suit in any division in a district,” id., pursuant to 28 USC § 1391(b)(2), which requires suit to “be brought in a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated.” Notably missing from the general venue statute is a limitation as to which division of a district suit must be filed. Accordingly, venue is not improper. 1 Defendants also cite 28 USC § 1404(a), which allows transfer even if venue is proper where the case was filed, if the movants can show that another venue is “clearly more convenient.” However, Defendants provide no justification as to why the Court should exercise such “discretion.” 28 USC § 1404(b). Defendants identify no witnesses for whom Texarkana would be more convenient. Defendants themselves admittedly reside out of state. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, have offered evidence that Marshall is a more convenient venue for key witnesses, including the investigating state trooper and the Plaintiffs treating physician. Accordingly, the motion to transfer, Dkt. No. 7, is DENIED. SIGNED this 23rd day of August, 2023.

9. : ROY S. PAYNE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

BREANNA GODINES § Plaintiff, § § v. § Civil Action No. 2:23-CV-0215-JRG-RSP § SHELBY LOGISTICS, INC., et al. § Defendant. § §

MEMORANDUM ORDER Before the Court defendants Shelby Logistics, Inc. and Michael Lamont Johnson move to transfer this action to the Texarkana Division of this Court. Dkt. No. 7. In this personal injury case, plaintiff alleges that on June 30, 2021 she was struck from behind by Defendants’ tractor-trailer while she was stopped waiting to turn left into the driveway of her home in Titus County, Texas. Defendant seeks transfer pursuant to 28 USC § 1404(a) claiming that the suit was filed in the wrong division, and that suit should have been brought in the Texarkana Division. “Prior to its repeal in 1988, the divisional venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1393, had limited plaintiffs in multi-divisional districts to filing suit in the division where the defendant resided.” In re Gibson, 423 F. App'x 385, 388 (5th Cir. 2011). However, §1393 was repealed, and “plaintiffs [are] free to file suit in any division in a district,” id., pursuant to 28 USC § 1391(b)(2), which requires suit to “be brought in a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated.” Notably missing from the general venue statute is a limitation as to which division of a district suit must be filed. Accordingly, venue is not improper. 1 Defendants also cite 28 USC § 1404(a), which allows transfer even if venue is proper where the case was filed, if the movants can show that another venue is “clearly more convenient.” However, Defendants provide no justification as to why the Court should exercise such “discretion.” 28 USC § 1404(b). Defendants identify no witnesses for whom Texarkana would be more convenient. Defendants themselves admittedly reside out of state. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, have offered evidence that Marshall is a more convenient venue for key witnesses, including the investigating state trooper and the Plaintiffs treating physician. Accordingly, the motion to transfer, Dkt. No. 7, is DENIED. SIGNED this 23rd day of August, 2023.

9. : ROY S. PAYNE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Godines v. Johnson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/godines-v-johnson-txed-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack