DAVID S. CAYER, Magistrate Judge.
This matter has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and is now ripe for consideration.
On January 22, 2018, the parties filed a "Stipulation of Partial Voluntary Dismissal (as to Punitive Damages Only)" (document #7). Accordingly, Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss (document #4) will be
Having fully considered the arguments, the record, and the applicable authority, the Court
Plaintiff was employed as a police officer with Defendant Town of St. Pauls Police Department. She alleges that she was discharged as a result of sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e,
Defendant has moved pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer this matter to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice. Defendant is located in the Eastern District. In support of its Motion, Defendant credibly states that all acts or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred in the Eastern District, and all fact witnesses and evidence are located there.
It is undisputed that Plaintiff has no ties to the Western District. She resides in the Middle District of North Carolina. Her doctor is also located in the Middle District.
In her brief in opposition, Plaintiff states that she selected this venue "in part to secure a fair trial. . . . And her legal counsel is located, and licensed exclusively [for federal purposes], in the Western District." Document #6 at 2. In essence, Plaintiff chose this forum because her attorney is located here.
Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue has been fully briefed and is ripe for determination.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court may "[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, . . . transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought." The question of transfer under section 1404(a) is committed to the sound discretion of the district court.
If venue in the transferee court is proper, as it is here, the Court must then consider the following factors in deciding whether the matter should be transferred:
Plaintiff's choice of forum is given considerable weight and, "unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed."
Here, Plaintiff has no connection to this forum other than her counsel. The Western District is neither Plaintiffs' residence nor the place where the operative events occurred. No fact witnesses or evidence are located here. This Court need not "stand as a willing repository for cases which have no real nexus to this district."
The Fourth Circuit has held that the location of counsel is not a permissible consideration in the transfer analysis.
The Fourth Circuit has also held that the convenience of paid expert witnesses carries no weight in the transfer analysis.
Applying these legal principles, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs' choice of forum is entitled to little weight.
Plaintiff is a resident of the Middle District of North Carolina. Defendant is located in the Eastern District. This factor favors transfer.
The Court finds that the bulk of the evidence is located in the Eastern District. Plaintiff's medical records are located in the Middle District. There is no evidence in this District. This factor favors transfer.
Most of Defendant's witnesses are located in the Eastern District, as are third party witnesses except for Plaintiff's doctor. Defendant has shown that it will incur substantial costs if its witnesses must travel to this District. Plaintiff will incur travel expenses and other inconveniences whether this case proceeds in the Western or Eastern District. Plaintiff has not shown that this District is a more convenient venue for her fact witnesses. This factor favors transfer.
Although Plaintiff and her doctor will have to travel regardless of the forum, as a whole, trial in the Eastern District of North Carolina will be less expensive. This factor favors transfer.
Plaintiff has offered a summary table, see Document #6-1, showing that case filings in 2016 and 2017 were higher in this District as compared to the Eastern District. Plaintiff has offered no information on docket congestion per judicial officer or the average time to trial. The Court concludes that this factor slightly favors retention.
This matter has no connection to this District. This factor favors transfer.
Plaintiff asserts that she filed her Complaint in this District "in part to secure a fair trial." (Document #6 at 2). She offers no support for her claim that she cannot obtain a fair trial in the Eastern District.
The remaining factors—the possibility of a jury view, relative advantages and obstacles to a fair trial, enforceability of a judgment, and avoiding unnecessary conflict-of-law problems—are neutral.
Having considered all of the factors individually, the Court also considers these factors cumulatively. Both quantitatively and qualitatively, these factors favor transfer. While Plaintiff chose this forum, she did so largely for the convenience of her counsel. That is not a relevant consideration.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that the interests of justice and convenience warrant granting Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue under Section 1404(a).
1. Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss (document #4) is
2. "Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue" (document #4) is
3.
4. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to counsel for the parties;