Opinion
No. 3-03-CV-1337-L.
May 10, 2004
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to the District Court's order of reference filed on April 12, 2004, came on to be considered Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Most Recent Demand for Deposition Appearance which the District Court has treated as a motion for change of venue and Defendant's response filed on April 29, 2004, and the magistrate judge finds and recommends as follows:
Plaintiffs filed their pro se complaint in this action on June 16, 2003, in which each of them alleged that they had been discriminated against in the terms of their employment by Defendant while each worked at Defendant's facility in Carrollton, Texas.
On June 16, 2003, each Plaintiff was a resident of Dallas, Texas.
At some time after Defendant filed its answer to the complaint Plaintiffs moved their residence to Tulsa, Oklahoma, and thereafter moved a second time to Wichita, Kansas, where each currently resides. It is clear that the Northern District of Texas was a proper district in which Plaintiffs' complaint could be filed when they filed their case. Plaintiffs have made no showing that venue would have been proper in the District of Kansas.
The gist of Plaintiffs' present motion is that because they have now removed their residence to Wichita and their financial and medical conditions are precarious, their case against Defendant should be transferred to the District of Kansas.
Plaintiffs have not given any assurances that they will not change their residence again while their complaint is pending. More to the point, and dispositive of their motion, is the fact that they have not satisfied the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Change of venue. As noted above, there is no showing that venue would have been proper in the District of Kansas when Plaintiffs filed their case. While it may be less convenient to Plaintiffs to require them to pursue their claims in the district in which they chose to bring their suit — the Northern District of Texas — they are the only parties and witnesses to the facts underlying their claims which would be inconvenienced. The incidents which give rise to their claims all occurred in the Northern District of Texas. All of Defendant's employees who have relevant knowledge as well as other non-employee persons with knowledge are located in the Northern District of Texas and, as conceded by Plaintiffs, would be subject to inconvenience were this case transferred to the District of Kansas. The interest of justice would not be served by shifting the burden of inconvenience to Defendant and its witnesses, particularly where this forum was the one chosen by Plaintiffs, themselves.
RECOMMENDATION:
For the foregoing reasons it is recommended that Plaintiffs' motion for change of venue be denied.
A copy of this recommendation shall be transmitted to Plaintiffs and counsel for Defendant.
NOTICE
In the event that you wish to object to this recommendation, you are hereby notified that you must file your written objections within ten days after being served with a copy of this recommendation. Pursuant to Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), a party's failure to file written objections to these proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law within such ten-day period may bar ade novo determination by the district judge of any finding of fact or conclusion of law and shall bar such party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected to proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law accepted by the district court.