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.

Partin v. Paul

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

December 21, 2016

WESLEY ALAN PARTIN PLAINTIFF
v.
TROY EUGENE PAUL, PAUL TRANSPORTATION, INC., and PAUL TRASNPORTATION SYSTEM, INC. DEFENDANTS

         ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S [43] MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S [38] MOTION FOR DISCOVERY; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' [36] 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

          HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         BEFORE THE COURT are three Motions: (1) the Motion [36] 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 [38] for Discovery filed by Plaintiff Wesley Alan Partin; and (3) the Motion [43] for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' Pending Motion to Dismiss filed by Plaintiff Wesley Alan Partin. These Motions are fully briefed.[1]

         After 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 [38] for Discovery and Motion [43] for Extension of Time to Respond should be denied, that Defendants' Motion [36] 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.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff 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 8.

         The 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.” Id.

         Plaintiff 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.

         Defendants removed the case to this Court on February 4, 2016, invoking diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Notice of Removal [1] 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 1.

         On February 25, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss [3] 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. [3] 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 [14] and Memorandum Brief [15] in opposition to this Motion [3]. After the Court granted Plaintiff additional time to effectuate service of process upon Mr. Paul, the Court denied without prejudice Defendants' Motion [3] to Dismiss and Plaintiff's Motion [25] to Conduct Limited Jurisdictional Discovery. Id.

         After 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 [36] to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, or in the Alternative, to Transfer to a Convenient Forum. Plaintiff then filed a Motion [38] for Discovery, seeking 90 days to conduct limited jurisdictional discovery, followed by a Motion [43] for Extension of Time to Respond to the Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff adopted his Response [14] and brief [15] in opposition to Defendants' prior Motion [3] to Dismiss, but asked for additional time to respond to Defendants' new Motion [36].

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Plaintiff's Motion [38] for Discovery should be denied.

         In 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. [38] at 1. Plaintiff seeks leave to depose these fact witnesses. Id. at 3.

         Regardless 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 ...


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.