Bundy v. ADESA Houston
6:16-cv-00426
W.D. Tex.Aug 3, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Harry E. Bundy, Jr. (pro se) sued ADESA Houston/ADESA Inc. in the Western District of Texas over the auction of a 2009 Nissan Maxima.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) (improper venue) and 12(b)(6); Plaintiff did not respond to that motion.
- Magistrate Judge Manske recommended transferring the case to the Southern District of Texas and denying the motion to dismiss as moot.
- Bundy objected, asking for a stay pending resolution of a related state-court appeal/petition to the Texas Supreme Court; he did not show why a stay of transfer was appropriate or explain the relationship between the matters.
- Defendant explained the federal and state actions involve substantially identical claims, that the related state action had been transferred to Harris County (Southern District), and that Bundy’s appellate filings in state court were dismissed or were mandamus filings—raising concerns about frivolous litigation tactics.
- The district court concluded Bundy repeatedly made frivolous arguments and baseless representations, declined to transfer in the interest of judicial economy, and dismissed the federal complaint without prejudice; the magistrate’s R&R was adopted as modified and the stay request was denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper venue / transfer or dismissal | Case should remain or be stayed pending state-court process (Plaintiff requested a stay) | Venue improper in W.D. Tex.; related state case is in Harris County; transfer would not serve justice | Venue improper; court declined to transfer and dismissed without prejudice |
| Motion to dismiss for improper venue (12(b)(3)) | Did not oppose dismissal motion substantively | Sought dismissal or transfer to Southern District | Motion to dismiss granted; claims dismissed without prejudice (court exercised discretion not to transfer) |
| Stay pending state-court proceedings | Asked for stay pending appeal/mandamus in Texas Supreme Court | Argued state filings were either dismissed or mandamus petitions and do not justify staying transfer | Stay denied as moot; no basis shown to delay disposition |
| Court’s treatment of alleged frivolous filings | Implied need to preserve ability to litigate merits if proper but did not present adequate explanation | Documented repeated frivolous arguments and misrepresentations; transfer would waste judicial resources | Court cited pattern of frivolous filings and used that as a reason to dismiss rather than transfer |
Key Cases Cited
No official-reporter cases were cited in the opinion.