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.

Luke v. Transwood Logistics Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division

April 28, 2014

CARRIE LUKE, PLAINTIFF
v.
TRANSWOOD LOGISTICS INC. and ALBERT HARRIS, DEFENDANTS

For Carrie Luke, Plaintiff: Robert C. Boyd, LEAD ATTORNEY, ROBERT BOYD AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Clinton, MS; David Kells Parker, BOYD & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Clinton, MS.

For Transwood Logistics Inc., Albert Harris, Defendants: Donna Powe Green, LEAD ATTORNEY, GREEN LAW FIRM, P.A., Hattiesburg, MS.

OPINION

Page 807

ORDER

Daniel P. Jordan III, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

This negligence action is before the Court on Defendants' 12(b)(3) Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion to Transfer [4]. Plaintiff Carrie Luke opposed the motion, and Defendants declined rebuttal. Because venue in this division is proper and the proposed venue is not clearly more convenient, Defendants' motion is denied.

I. Background

This case arises from an October 12, 2011 traffic accident in Marion County, Mississippi. Plaintiff Carrie Luke was a passenger in a pick-up truck that made contact with a tractor-trailer driven by Defendant Albert Harris. Luke was an inmate being transported by an employee of the Marion County Sheriff's Office. According to Luke, Transwood Logistics owns the tractortrailer that Harris was driving.

Luke filed suit in the Southern District of Mississippi, Northern Division, alleging negligence. Defendants filed the instant motion asking the Court to dismiss the case for improper venue or transfer the case to the Eastern Division, where the accident occurred.

II. Analysis

A. Proper Venue Under § 1391

Defendants suggest that Luke filed in the wrong venue and they are entitled to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(3), but the argument receives only passing reference. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) if the case is " brought in . . . a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated . . . ." The statute only speaks to judicial " districts" and not to " divisions." See, e.g., Timberlake v. Synthes Spine Co., L.P., CIV.A. V-08-4, 2008 WL 1836676, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2008). Defendants never argue that this district is an improper venue and in fact seek to keep the case within the Southern District. Defendants therefore are not entitled to a dismissal for improper venue.

B. Venue Transfer

Defendants' motion seems to seek transfer on two separate ...


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.