James v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc.

GILBERT JAMES, Plaintiff, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant.

Civil Action No. 3:12cv902

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division

Dated: January 2, 2014

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on DEFENDANT EXPERIAN SOLUTIONS, INC.'S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO REASSIGN CASE (Docket No. 11) and PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S REPLY IN SUPPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO REASSIGN CASE (Docket No. 27). For the reasons set forth below, DEFENDANT EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.'S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1401(a) OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO REASSIGN CASE (Docket No. 11) will be denied and PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO REASSIGN CASE (Docket No. 27) will be denied.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs, Gilbert James, Susan Chandler, Theresa Hood, Adedayo Peterson, and Joyce Ridgley filed a complaint against Experian Information Solutions, Inc. ("Experian") on December 26, 2012. All Plaintiffs allege violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. The specific details of each Plaintiff's claims differ slightly, but all of them make the following allegations: (1) Plaintiffs all filed disputes as to information in their Experian credit reports, thereby alerting Experian in writing of the erroneous information; (2) Plaintiffs did not satisfy Experian's policy that all dispute notifications from consumers must include certain consumer information, specifically, the consumer's full social security number, previous addresses for the past two years, full name, date of birth, a copy of a government issued identification card, and a copy of a utility bill or bank statement; and (3) Experian did not correct Plaintiffs' credit reports. Experian does not require similarly detailed information from banking industry customers to whom it sells these consumer credit reports. (Compl. ¶ 28-29.) Plaintiffs allege that Experian's demand for this detailed information from individual consumers before taking any action on the consumer's dispute violated the FCRA. Plaintiffs also allege that the placement of these additional burdens on individual consumers isa deliberate attempt on the part of Experian to avoid resolving the individuals' disputes, and that this practice violates the FCRA. (Compl. ¶ 33.)

Plaintiffs bring their claim on behalf of other individuals similarly situated, and allege facts to support their proceeding as a "class" under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. (Compl. ¶¶ 38-43.)

LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Transfer of Venue

According to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), "for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought." The statute "is intended to place discretion in the district court to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an 'individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.'" Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh, Inc., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622 (1964)). The party requesting a change of venue has the burden of demonstrating that a transfer of venue is warranted. Original Creatine Patent Co., Ltd. v. Met-Rx USA, Inc., 387 F. Supp. 2d 564, 566 (E.D. Va. 2005).

When deciding a motion to transfer venue, the Court must assess two issues: (1) Could the Plaintiffs' claims have been brought in the proposed transferee forum; and (2) Is the transfer justified when considering the interests of justice and convenience of the parties? See Koh v. Microtek Int'l Inc., 250 F. Supp. 2d 627, 630 (E.D. Va. 2003). Each issue will be discussed seriatim.

1. Is Venue In The Transferee Forum Proper?

A transfer of venue may only be granted "if the plaintiff could have maintained the action in the target forum." Taltwell, LLC v. Zonet USA Corp., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93465, at *32 (E.D. Va. Dec. 20, 2007). Venue is proper in "a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Venue is also proper in a judicial district in which any defendant is a resident. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). As a corporation, Experian "resides" in a district in which it would be subject to the court's personal jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2).

Experian is an Ohio corporation with its headquarters and principal place of business in Costa Mesa, California. Experian proposes to transfer venue to the Northern District of Texas where its National Consumer Assistance Center ("NCAC") is located in Allen, Texas. That office, says Experian, isprimarily responsible for handling consumer disputes, including those alleged by Plaintiffs. Experian alleges that all of its relevant documents are likely located in Allen, Texas, as are many of its likely witnesses.

It appears that, because Experian's NCAC is located in Allen, Texas, Experian has the minimum contacts with Texas to warrant the local District Court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over it there.¹ Additionally, a "substantial part" of the actions that created Plaintiffs' claims occurred in Experian's NCAC from which Experian likely sent Plaintiffs the written requests for more information that are the crux of this litigation. For these reasons, this action could have been brought in the Northern District of Texas.

2. Is Transfer Proper?

The most important factors to be considered when ruling on a motion to transfer venue are the plaintiff's choice of forum, party convenience, witness convenience, and the interests ofjustice. Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Rambus Inc., 386 F. Supp. 2d 708, 716 (E.D. Va. 2005) (rev'd on other grounds, 523 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing Koh, 250 F. Supp. 2d at 633).

(i) Deference Given To Plaintiff's Choice

In general, a plaintiff's choice of forum is given "great deference." Ion Bean Applications S.A. v. Titan Corp., 156 F. Supp. 2d 552, 563 (E.D. Va. 2000) . In cases where the chosen forum is not where relevant events occurred or where the plaintiffs live, then the plaintiff's choice is entitled to a lower level of consideration. Id. In a class action suit, "'the named plaintiff's choice of forum is afforded little weight because in such a case, there will be numerous potential plaintiffs, each possibly able to make a showing that a particular forum is best suited for the adjudication of the class' claim.'" Byerson v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 467 F. Supp. 2d 627, 633 (E.D. Va. 2006) (quoting Eichenholtz v. Brennan, 677 F. Supp. 198, 202 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (citing Koster v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U.S. 518, 524, (1947)). Here, Plaintiffs have alleged facts which, if taken as true, would appear to justify proceeding as a class. (Compl. ¶¶ 38-43.) As a nationwide consumer data service, Experian, by its own admission, handles the data for millions of American consumers. And, it appears that a substantial number of these consumers likely will have had similar experiences with Experian as havethe putative class plaintiffs and thus would be entitled to prosecute similar claims, or to join in the current class action suit. In particular, Experian estimates that it sent 15,357 letters requesting additional information to people similarly situated to the plaintiffs. Therefore, there could be as many as 15,357 plaintiffs who could potentially join this suit. Given the large number of potential plaintiffs and the likelihood that they live in various parts of the United States (both inside and outside of the Eastern District of Virginia), the plaintiffs' choice of forum is entitled to little deference in this case.

As the Plaintiffs contend, the Court did hold, in Byerson, that in a class action suit, the plaintiffs' choice of forum there should be given great deference. Byerson, 467 F. Supp. 2d at 633. That decision was influenced heavily by the facts that the plaintiffs' choice of forum was amenable to inexpensive discovery, was home to the Plaintiffs, and was home to key nonparty witnesses. Id. However, in this case, the Eastern District of Virginia is not particularly amenable to inexpensive discovery, is home to several of the plaintiffs, but is not home to key non-party witnesses. Neither party has alleged that any key non-party witnesses are located in Richmond. For these reasons, this case is distinguishable from Byerson. The normaldeference to the plaintiffs in their choice of forum is lessened in this nationwide class action suit.²

(ii) Party Convenience

A court's consideration of the convenience to the parties includes "'ease of access to sources of proof, the cost of obtaining the attendance of witnesses, and the availability of compulsory process.'" Byerson, 467 F. Supp. 2d at 633, (quoting Samsung, 386 F. Supp. 2d at 717, n.13)). However, simply "shifting" one party's inconvenience to the other party does not support a transfer of venue. See Taltwell, LLC v. Zonet USA Corp., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93465, at *35 (E.D. Va. Dec. 20,2007) (citing E. Coast Res. LLC v. Hampstead, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51285, at *8 (E.D. Va. Jul 16, 2007) (citing JTH Tax, Inc. v Lee, 482 F. Supp.2d 731, 736 (E.D. Va. 2007); Bd. of Tr. v. Sullivan Ave. Prop., LLC, 508 F. Supp. 2d 473, 478 (E.D. Va. 2007))).

In this case, Experian contends that almost all of its supporting documentation, most of which is in electronic form, and its key witnesses are located in Texas and / or California, making Texas a geographically central forum that would be more convenient for the parties. (Def.'s Mot. Transfer 13, ECF No. 12.) However, the named Plaintiffs all live in Virginia, albeit in different divisions and districts within Virginia. Much of Plaintiffs' supporting evidence, at least as to what happened to them in their dealings with Experian and as to their damages, is...