Blanton v. Covington Credit of Texas Inc, 3:21-cv-00152

Plaintiff Eric Blanton sued Arrow Ford, Inc. in the Dallas Division of the N.D. Tex., alleging Arrow violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by falsely reporting him past due, causing credit harm and other damages.
Arrow moved to transfer the case intradistrict to the Abilene Division under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), arguing its business, witnesses, and documents are located in Abilene and some witnesses lie beyond Rule 45’s 100-mile subpoena range for Dallas.
Blanton argued venue in Dallas is proper, his injuries occurred in the Dallas Division (Forney/Kaufman County), his witnesses are local, and transfer would cause delay; he also contested Arrow’s assertions about documents and witness inconvenience.
The court found the Abilene Division would have been a proper district for original filing (threshold under Volkswagen), so it proceeded to balance the Volkswagen private and public interest factors.
After weighing factors, the court concluded seven factors weighed against transfer and one was neutral (cost of attendance), rejected Arrow’s Rule 45-based argument as insufficient, and denied the motion because Arrow failed to show Abilene was "clearly more convenient."

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Abilene Division is a proper transferee forum (§1404(a) threshold)	Blanton asserted venue in Dallas is proper but did not dispute Abilene could also be proper	Arrow argued Abilene is proper because its headquarters and records are there	Court: Abilene could have been an original forum (threshold satisfied)
Whether transfer is warranted under §1404(a) (Volkswagen balancing)	Blanton: his residence, injuries, and witnesses are in Dallas; transfer would delay and is unnecessary	Arrow: Abilene is more convenient—business, witnesses, and documents located there; some witnesses beyond Rule 45 100-mile reach for Dallas	Court: Denied transfer — Arrow failed to show Abilene was "clearly more convenient;" seven factors against, one neutral
Availability of compulsory process (Rule 45)	Blanton: witnesses can be compelled or travel expense is not substantial; court can condition subpoenas	Arrow: Some witnesses live beyond 100 miles of Dallas and thus are not subject to compulsory process there	Court: Weighed against transfer — Rule 45(c)(1)(B) and court’s ability to condition subpoenas mitigate Arrow’s argument
Potential delay and other practical problems	Blanton: transfer would delay trial (scheduling already set in Dallas) and increase costs	Arrow: local ties to Abilene favor transfer	Court: Transfer would likely delay disposition; this public/private practical factor weighed strongly against transfer

In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004) (articulates private and public interest factors for §1404(a) transfers)
In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) (plaintiff's forum choice entitled to deference; transferee must be clearly more convenient)
In re Horseshoe Entm't, 337 F.3d 429 (5th Cir. 2003) (plaintiff's choice is a factor but not dispositive)
Peteet v. Dow Chem. Co., 868 F.2d 1428 (5th Cir. 1989) (§1404(a) transfer is discretionary and requires weighing all relevant factors)
Time, Inc. v. Manning, 366 F.2d 690 (5th Cir. 1966) (moving party bears burden to show transfer is warranted)
Jarvis Christian Coll. v. Exxon Corp., 845 F.2d 523 (5th Cir. 1988) (distance of a few hundred miles may be only a minor inconvenience and not justify transfer)
Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Tejas Concrete & Materials Inc., 982 F. Supp. 2d 714 (N.D. Tex. 2013) (substantial-connection requirement for proper venue does not require the best possible venue)