Harrell v. Robinson
5:14-cv-00214
E.D. Ark.May 15, 2014Background
- Plaintiff David Harrell worked for the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department from March 15, 2007 to November 3, 2009; defendants Robinson, James, and Woods were his supervisors.
- Harrell sued the Jefferson County Defendants alleging race discrimination (termination and efforts to decertify him) and retaliation (providing negative references after an EEOC charge).
- The Jefferson County Defendants moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the case from the Western District of Arkansas (Hot Springs) to the Eastern District of Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division.
- Defendants argued transfer was proper because Harrell and the Jefferson County Defendants live in Jefferson County and most witnesses and documents are located there.
- The Western District judge found the case could have been brought in the Eastern District, that convenience of parties/witnesses and the interest of justice favored transfer, and that deference to Harrell’s chosen forum was reduced because he did not reside in the Western District and the events occurred in Jefferson County.
- The Court granted the motion and ordered transfer to the Eastern District of Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division; a scheduled trial was canceled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is warranted | Harrell argued his chosen forum should not be disturbed (forum choice) | Transfer is more convenient because parties, witnesses, and evidence are in Jefferson County (Eastern District) | Transfer granted — factors (convenience and interest of justice) favor Eastern District |
| Whether case "might have been brought" in proposed transferee district | Harrell contested venue but did not contend Eastern District was improper | Defendants asserted the action could have been brought in Eastern District | Court found case could have been brought there, so § 1404(a) satisfied |
| Weight to be given plaintiff's forum choice | Harrell relied on presumption favoring plaintiff's forum selection | Defendants argued reduced deference because Harrell doesn’t reside in Western District and events occurred elsewhere | Court applied reduced deference and found transfer appropriate |
| Whether public interest/local interest favors transfer | Harrell implied interest in keeping case in Western District | Defendants argued Jefferson County (where events occurred and parties reside) has stronger interest | Court held Eastern District has strong local interest; transfer in interest of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- Terra Int’l. Inc. v. Miss. Chem. Corp., 119 F.3d 688 (8th Cir. 1997) (District court should consider convenience of parties and witnesses and interest of justice under § 1404(a))
- In re Nine Mile Ltd., 692 F.2d 56 (8th Cir. 1982) (transfer motions should not be freely granted; appellate guidance on § 1404(a) discretion)
- Mo. Hous. Dev. Comm’n v. Brice, 191 F.2d 1306 (8th Cir. 1990) (abrogation noted for related precedent on transfer analysis)
- Christensen Hatch Farms, Inc. v. Peavey Co., 505 F. Supp. 903 (D. Minn. 1981) (presumption favoring plaintiff’s choice of forum)
- Nelson v. Soo Line R.R. Co., 58 F. Supp. 2d 1023 (D. Minn. 1999) (less deference to plaintiff’s forum when plaintiff does not reside and events did not occur there)