Mohamed v. Mazda Motor Corp.

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Mohamed v. Mazda Motor Corp. as edited by DavidB4-bot (Talk | contribs) at 16:11, July 13, 2016. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

In Mohamed v. Mazda Motor Corp., 90 F. Supp. 2d 757 (E.D. Tex. 2000), a federal court denied a motion to transfer venue.

The district court held that:

Regardless whether the plaintiff or the defendant moves for transfer under Section 1404(a), 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 (5th Cir.1966); Gundle Lining Construction Corp. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 844 F. Supp. 1163, 1165 (S.D.Tex.1994). To prevail, the litigant must demonstrate that the balance of convenience and justice substantially weighs in favor of transfer. Gundle, 844 F. Supp. at 1165. "Moreover, there is a 'strong presumption in favor of the plaintiff's choice of forum that may be overcome only when the private and public interest factors clearly point towards trial in the alternative forum.'" Robertson, 42 F. Supp. 2d at 655 (quoting Schexnider v. McDermott Intern., Inc., 12 817 F.2d 1159, 1163 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 977, 98 L. Ed. 2d 486, 108 S. Ct. 488 (1987)).

The court emphasized the deference placed in plaintiff's choice of forum:

In In re Triton Limited Securities Litigation the Honorable David Folsom explained that the judicial system inherently provides a plaintiff with his choice of forum." 70 F. Supp. 2d 678, 689 (E.D. Tex. 1999). In support of that proposition, Judge Folsom quoted the following Fifth Circuit passage:
The existence of [forum choices] not only permits but indeed invites counsel in an adversary system, seeking to serve his client's interests, to select the forum that he considers most receptive to his cause. The motive of the suitor in making his choice is ordinarily of no moment: a court may be selected because its docket moves rapidly, its discovery procedures are liberal, its juror are generous, the rules of law applied are more favorable, or the judge who presides in that forum is thought more likely to rule in the litigant's favor. McCuin v. Texas Power & Light Co., 714 F.2d 1255, 1261-62 (5th Cir.1983).

The court also noted that late, Honorable Sam B. Hall, Jr. of the Eastern District of Texas restated a similar justification for the presumption in favor of the plaintiff's choice of forum:

Every litigant who files a lawsuit engages in forum shopping [**50] when he chooses a place to file suit. The Court is concerned only with whether the choice of forum is a proper one under the law, and not with the motives of the party selecting the forum. The venue statutes are inherently broad, and litigants must often make an election from among several options as to where to file a lawsuit. The litigant's right to choose a forum is well established, and there are well-recognized tests under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 to determine whether a party has exceeded the bounds of fairness, convenience, and judicial economy in the selection made.

Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Micron Semiconductor, Inc., 815 F. Supp. 994, 996 (E.D.Tex.1993) (citing Box v. Ameritrust, N.A., 810 F. Supp. 776 (E.D.Tex.1992)).

The Eastern District of Texas thereby "recognized the presumption of deference afforded to the plaintiff's choice of forum."