Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Edwards v. Sanyo Manufacturing Corp.

February 27, 2007

BRENDA EDWARDS PLAINTIFF
v.
SANYO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION DEFENDANT



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. United States District Judge

ORDER

Pending is Plaintiff's Motion for Change of Venue from the Jonesboro Division to the Eastern Division (Doc. No. 29). Defendant objects to the change of venue and requests that the case remain in the Jonesboro Division (Doc. No. 31). Plaintiff bases this contested motion on 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) arguing that this case should be transferred to the Eastern Division for the convenience of the parties and witnesses (Doc. No. 29).*fn1 In response to Plaintiff's motion, Defendant cites 28 U.S.C. § 1404(b) and performs a factor analysis leading to its conclusion that this case should remain in the Jonesboro Division (Doc. No. 32).*fn2

The movant typically bears the burden of demonstrating that the court should transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).*fn3 In deciding whether a venue transfer is appropriate, the court weighs private and public interest factors.*fn4 The movant must demonstrate that the factors justify transfer. Intradistrict transfers pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(b) are discretionary transfers subject to the same analysis as under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) but are judged by a less rigorous standard.*fn5

In this case, Plaintiff has not met its burden because it has failed to provide the required evidence to support transfer pursuant to either 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) or 28 U.S.C. § 1404(b). Plaintiff has not engaged in analyzing the applicable factors. Specifically, Plaintiff fails to identify any particular witnesses whose convenience would be increased if this case were transferred to the Eastern Division. Plaintiff also fails to show that access to evidence would be more convenient if this case were transferred to the Eastern Division. Similarly, Plaintiff has not indicated whether transfer to the Eastern Division offers lower costs for obtaining witnesses. Finally, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate how trial would be more inexpensive and expeditious in the Eastern Division. Plaintiff has failed to provide the required evidence to support transfer. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Change of Venue is DENIED.

Also pending is Plaintiff's Motion to Continue (Doc. No. 30). The Motion is GRANTED.

A new scheduling order will be sent forthwith.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.