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.

Temple v. Circuit City Stores

September 27, 2006

FLOYD EDWARD TEMPLE, JR.
v.
CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INC. AND ROGER BENNETT AND RICHARD A. COMBS
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Ronnie Greer United States District Judge

ORDER

Each of these actions brought by plaintiffs seeking to act as representatives of a proposed class of citizens who purchased goods from the defendants between October 25, 1992 and January 4, 2005, is before the Court to consider a Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge dated February 21, 2006, recommending a transfer of venue to the District Court for the Eastern District of New York. [Doc. 22 (Wal-Mart) and Doc. 31 (Circuit City)]. The cases involve nearly identical issues, and plaintiffs are represented by the same counsel. The United States Magistrate Judge held a joint hearing as to the defendants' motions to transfer venue in each case with the same Report and Recommendation being filed in each case. The plaintiffs have filed an objection to this Report in each case. [Doc. 25 (Wal-Mart) and Doc. 32 (Circuit City)].

Consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has made a de novo review of the United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, including, but not limited to, a review of the pleadings filed with the Court relative to the defendants' motions to transfer venue, the transcript of the proceedings before the United States Magistrate Judge, and the objections to the Report and Recommendation. The required de novo review "was not meant to compel the Judge to conduct a new hearing, but simply that he or she must 'give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objections have been made'." 12 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3070.2 (1997). In exercising its broad discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), this District Court has weighed the various factors to be considered in determining whether to transfer a case, including the plaintiffs' choice of forum, witness location, residence of the parties, location of proof, location of the events giving rise to the dispute, all the while keeping in mind that the "purpose of § 1404(a) 'is to prevent the waste of time, energy, and money,' and 'to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expenses.'" Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Tenn. v. Griffin, 2004 W.L. 1854165, * 4 E.D. Tenn. 2004); See Image Point, Inc. v. Keyser Industries, Inc., 2005 W.L. 12442067 (E.D. Tenn. 2005); Ellipsis, Inc. v. Colorworks, Inc., 329 F. Supp. 2d 962 (W.D. Tenn. 2004).

After conducting this review, the Court FINDS that the Report and Recommendation should be approved. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and APPROVED, and the defendants' motions to transfer venue are GRANTED. [Doc. 8 (Wal-Mart) and Doc. 14 (Circuit City)].

SO ORDERED.

20060927

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw ...

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.