United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division
DENYING PLAINTIFF'S  MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S  MOTION FOR DISCOVERY; GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS'  MOTION TO DISMISS
FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANFER
TO A CONVENIENT FORUM; AND TRANFERRING THIS CASE TO THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
TEXAS, FORT WORTH DIVISION
SULEYMAN OZERDEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THE COURT are three Motions: (1) the Motion  to Dismiss
for Lack of Jurisdiction, or in the Alternative, to Transfer
to a Convenient Forum filed by Defendants Troy Eugene Paul,
Paul Transportation, Inc., and Paul Transportation System,
Inc.; (2) the Motion  for Discovery filed by Plaintiff
Wesley Alan Partin; and (3) the Motion  for Extension of
Time to Respond to Defendants' Pending Motion to Dismiss
filed by Plaintiff Wesley Alan Partin. These Motions are
due consideration of the briefs of the parties and the
applicable law, and being otherwise fully advised in the
premises, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Motion 
for Discovery and Motion  for Extension of Time to
Respond should be denied, that Defendants' Motion  to
Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, or in the Alternative, to
Transfer to a Convenient Forum should be granted in part and
denied in part, and that this civil action should be
transferred to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division.
Wesley Alan Partin filed a Complaint [1-2] on November 16,
2015, in the Circuit Court of Harrison County, Mississippi,
Second Judicial District, against Defendants Troy Eugene Paul
(“Mr. Paul”), Paul Transportation, Inc., and Paul
Transportation System, Inc. (collectively, the “Paul
companies”), advancing claims under Mississippi law for
alienation of affections, negligent infliction of emotional
distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Compl. [1-2] at 6-8. Plaintiff seeks to hold the Paul
companies vicariously liable for the alleged wrongful conduct
of its employees whom he alleges were acting “within
the course and scope of their employment and in furtherance
of the business of the Paul companies.” Id. at
Complaint asserts that on May 28, 2015, during a four-day
trip to Biloxi, Mississippi, Plaintiff's then wife,
Lezlie Partin (“Ms. Partin”), was encouraged
and/or coerced by Crystal McCallum (“Ms.
McCallum”), at Mr. Paul's behest, to engage in
sexual relations with Ms. McCallum and Mr. Paul. Compl. [1-2]
at 5. The Complaint alleges that Ms. Partin, Ms. McCallum,
and other models had accompanied Mr. Paul to Biloxi, on
behalf of all Defendants. Id. According to the
Complaint, “following the May 28th sexual
encounter in Biloxi, [Ms. Partin] was emotionally torn and
attempted to distance her relationship with” Paul
Defendants, but Mr. Paul “continued his pursuit.”
maintains that Mr. Paul's “efforts were
successful.” Plaintiff filed for a divorce from Ms.
Partin on August 24, 2015, and he and Ms. Partin “were
divorced on November 9, 2015[, ] in Tarrant County,
Texas.” Aff. of Lezlie Partin [36-1] at 2. The
Complaint alleges that Ms. Partin and Mr. Paul
“continue[d] their personal, intimate, sexual
relationship” until at least the filing of the
Complaint on November 16, 2015. Compl. [1-2] at 5-6.
Defendants dispute Plaintiff's claim that Mr. Paul and
Ms. Partin engaged in a sexual relationship while in
Mississippi and have submitted the Affidavits of Ms. Partin
[36-1], Mia Vincent (“Ms. Vincent”) [36-2], Ms.
McCallum [36-3], and Mr. Paul [36-4] to dispute this claim.
removed the case to this Court on February 4, 2016, invoking
diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Notice of Removal  at 1-2. Mr. Paul is a resident of
Tulsa, Oklahoma. Aff. of Troy Paul [36-4] at 1. The Paul
Companies are Oklahoma corporations with their principal
places of business in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Aff. of Troy Paul
[36-5] at 1. Plaintiff and Ms. Partin, who is not a party to
the litigation, are both residents of Tarrant County, Texas.
Aff. of Lezlie Partin [36-1] at 1. Ms. Vincent and Ms.
McCallum are both residents of Dallas County, Texas. Aff. of
Mia Vincent [36-2] at 1; Aff. of Crystal McCallum [36-3] at
February 25, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss 
for Lack of Service of Process and Personal Jurisdiction, or
in the Alternative, to Transfer to a Convenient Forum.
Defendants asserted that Mr. Paul had not been properly
served, and that this Court lacked personal jurisdiction over
all Defendants. Mot.  at 2. Defendants alternatively
sought transfer of venue to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Id. at 2-3.
Plaintiff filed a Response  and Memorandum Brief  in
opposition to this Motion . After the Court granted
Plaintiff additional time to effectuate service of process
upon Mr. Paul, the Court denied without prejudice
Defendants' Motion  to Dismiss and Plaintiff's
Motion  to Conduct Limited Jurisdictional Discovery.
Mr. Paul's counsel informed the Court that he had
accepted service of process on behalf of Mr. Paul and waived
any further objection to Plaintiff's failure to serve
process on Mr. Paul, Defendants filed the present Motion 
to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, or in the Alternative,
to Transfer to a Convenient Forum. Plaintiff then filed a
Motion  for Discovery, seeking 90 days to conduct limited
jurisdictional discovery, followed by a Motion  for
Extension of Time to Respond to the Motion to Dismiss.
Plaintiff adopted his Response  and brief  in
opposition to Defendants' prior Motion  to Dismiss,
but asked for additional time to respond to Defendants'
new Motion .
Plaintiff's Motion  for Discovery should be
support of their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants have submitted
affidavits from Ms. Partin [36-1], Ms. Vincent [36-2], Ms.
McCallum [36-3], and Mr. Paul [36-4], [36-5]. Plaintiff
maintains that “these affidavits are wholly false and
contain perjured statements put forth to assist Defendants
evade [sic] the jurisdiction of this Court.” Mot. 
at 1. Plaintiff seeks leave to depose these fact witnesses.
Id. at 3.
of whether the Court has personal jurisdiction over all
Defendants, the Court ultimately holds that transfer of venue
is appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The
Court therefore finds that jurisdictional discovery before
this Court ...