From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Florer v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation

United States District Court, N.D. Texas
Sep 23, 2003
Civil No. 3: 03-CV-1175-H (N.D. Tex. Sep. 23, 2003)

Opinion

Civil No. 3: 03-CV-1175-H

September 23, 2003


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER


Before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Change of Venue, filed August 11, 2003, and Plaintiff's Response, filed September 2, 2003. Defendant Electronic Data Systems Corporation ("EDS") seeks to have the case transferred to the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 14O4(a). Plaintiff opposes the transfer.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Larry Florer ("Florer") was employed by Defendant EDS as a Client Sales Executive Level III until his employment was terminated July 2, 2002. (Compl. at 2). Florer alleges he was terminated because of his age, 62 at the time of his termination, or as part of a discriminatory reduction in force of a class of older employees. (Compl. at 3). Florer brings suit pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq., and seeks declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 2202. (Compl. at 2).

Defendant EDS moves to transfer venue from the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division ("Northern District"), where Plaintiff filed this case, to the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division ("Eastern District"), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 14O4(a). (Mot. at 1). EDS does not argue that venue is improper in the Northern District, but rather that the Eastern District is a more convenient forum. (Mot. at 1-2). Defendant argues the Eastern District is more convenient for two reasons: 1) EDS's offices, records, and many witnesses are in Piano, Texas, which is within the Eastern District; and 2) Plaintiff Florer has an earlier-filed action pending in the Eastern District, involving the same parties. ( Id.).

In re Electronic Data Systems Corporation "ERISA" Litigation, Case No. 6:03-MD-1512.

Florer argues in his Response that the Eastern District is not as convenient a forum for either the parties or the witnesses. (Resp. at 1-2). Florer also argues that his earlier-filed case pending in the Eastern District has entirely different issues and facts than the instant case. (Resp. at 2).

Plaintiff also argues that venue is proper in the Northern District pursuant to the Title VII venue provisions. (Resp. Br. at 1-2). However, the instant case is brought pursuant to the ADEA, not Title VTI. (Compl. at 1-2). The ADEA has no specific venue provision, see 29 U.S.C. § 626(c)(1), and therefore venue is decided under the general venue provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Cf. Paterson v. Weinberger, 644 F.2d 521, 522 (5th Cir. 1981) (discussing subject matter jurisdiction for ADEA claims and implicitly agreeing that general venue provision is controlling for ADEA claims). See also Rebar v. Marsh, 959 F.2d 216, 219 (11th Cir. 1992) (holding that since there is no venue provision in the ADEA, the general venue provision applies to ADEA actions); Wood v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 881 F.2d 1085, 1989 WL 90171, **6 (9th Cir. (Wash.) 1989) (unpublished opinion holding the general venue provision applies to ADEA claims)).

Plaintiff asserts that the ERISA Litigation is pending in the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, not the Sherman Division.

Plaintiff argues that the issues in the ERISA action pertain to Defendant's purchase of its own stock as part of its 40IK investment program and do not share any common issues with Plaintiff's ADEA claim. (PL's Br. at 4). Defendant offers no contradicting evidence.

II. ANALYSIS

"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 trial court must consider all relevant factors to determine whether or not on balance the litigation would more conveniently proceed and the interests of justice be better served by transfer to a different forum." Peteet v. Dow Chemical Co., 868 F.2d 1428, 1436 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied sub nom, Dow Chemical Co. v. Greenhill, 493 U.S. 935 (1989) (quoting 15 C. Wright, A. Miller E. Cooper, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3847, at 370 (1986)). The plaintiff has the right to select the forum. Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947); Time Inc. v. Manning, 366 F.2d 690, 698 (5th Cir. 1966). "The plaintiff's choice of forum should only be disturbed upon a clear showing of facts that establish either oppressiveness or vexatiousness towards a defendant as to be out of proportion to a plaintiff's convenience . . . or [that] make a trial in the chosen forum inappropriate because of considerations affecting the court's own administrative and legal problems." Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Multinet Mktg., LLC, 959 F. Supp. 394, 396 (N.D.Tex. 1997) (quotations and citations omitted). In determining whether a transfer of venue is appropriate under § 14O4(a), a district court should consider:

the convenience of the parties and witnesses, the availability of process to compel the presence of unwilling witnesses, the cost of obtaining the presence of witnesses, the relative ease of access to sources of proof, calendar congestion, where the events in issue took place, and the interests of justice in general.
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Herzog Services, Inc., 990 F. Supp. 503, 504 (N.D. Tex. 1998).

In the instant case, EDS argues the Eastern District is more convenient because EDS's headquarters and records are in Piano, Texas, which is in the Eastern District. (Mot. at 1-2). EDS also argues that the Eastern District will be more convenient for witnesses because most of the witnesses work at EDS and many live in Piano. (Id.). This argument ignores the fact that although Piano is in the Eastern District, it is geographically closer for those located in Plano to travel to the courthouse in Dallas (Northern District), than to travel to the courthouse in Sherman (Eastern District). The Court concludes that venue in the Northern District, is more convenient for the parties and witnesses than the Eastern District.

EDS also argues that transfer is proper because Florer has another case pending against EDS in the Eastern District and the first-filed rule dictates transfer. The first-filed rule only applies where a Complaint involving the same parties and issues has been filed in another district. See Trinity Indus. Inc. v. 188 L.L.C., No. 3:02-cv-405-H, 2002 WL31245374, at *1 (N.D.Tex. Oct. 2, 2002). When deciding whether the first-filed rule applies, the court must first decide whether a substantial relationship exists between the two case, or whether the two cases would be consolidated if filed in the same court. Id. at *2. If not, then no transfer is necessary. Id. In the instant case, the Court concludes that there is no substantial relationship between this case involving ADEA claims and the ERISA action pending in the Eastern District, that the two cases would not be consolidated if in the same district, and that, therefore, no transfer is warranted.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Defendant's Motion for Change of Venue is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Florer v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation

United States District Court, N.D. Texas
Sep 23, 2003
Civil No. 3: 03-CV-1175-H (N.D. Tex. Sep. 23, 2003)
Case details for

Florer v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation

Case Details

Full title:LARRY FLORER, Plaintiff v. ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Defendant

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

Date published: Sep 23, 2003

Citations

Civil No. 3: 03-CV-1175-H (N.D. Tex. Sep. 23, 2003)