Case 5:20-cv-01426-LCB Document 13 Filed 09/28/20 Page 1 of 3 FILED

2020 Sep-28 PM 03:23

U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
JENNIFER CASE, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Case No.: 5:20-cv-1426-LCB
)
KAY IVEY, in her individual and )
official capacity as Governor of )
Alabama, et al., )

Defendants.

ORDER

On September 28, 2020, the Court conducted a hearing regarding the

defendants’ motion to transfer venue. (Doc. 9). Having considered the motion, the

plaintiffs’ response, and the arguments presented at the hearing, the Court finds that

the motion is due to be granted.

Venue is proper in “a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all

defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located,” 28 U.S.C. §

1391(b)(1), or 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 property that is

the subject of the action is situated.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

In their motion to transfer venue, the defendants argue that the proper venue

for this case is the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.
 Case 5:20-cv-01426-LCB Document 13 Filed 09/28/20 Page 2 of 3

According to the defendants, the events giving rise to the plaintiffs’ claims “were

the issuance of the challenged health orders,” which, the defendants claimed,

occurred in Montgomery, Alabama. (Doc. 9, p. 2). There is no dispute that the

orders were issued in Montgomery nor is there any dispute that the defendants reside

in Montgomery for purposes of this case. Rather, the plaintiffs argue that because

they have alleged that their injuries occurred in the Northern District of Alabama,

venue is proper here. See (Doc. 12, pp. 2-3).

In Fla. Hometown Democracy, Inc. v. Browning, No. 08-CV-80636-CIV,

2008 WL 3540607, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 12, 2008), the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida addressed a similar issue:

In Jenkins Brick Co. v. Bremer, 321 F.3d 1366 (11th Cir. 2003), the
Eleventh Circuit addressed in detail the requirements of this provision.
At the outset, the court stated that “[o]nly the events that directly give
rise to a claim are relevant.” Jenkins Brick, 321 F.3d at 1371. The court,
in adopting the logic of the Eighth Circuit's holding in Woodke v. Dahm,
70 F.3d 983 (8th Cir. 1995), explained that “Congress therefore ‘meant
to require courts to focus on relevant activities of the defendant, not of
the plaintiff.’” Jenkins Brick, 321 F.3d at 1371-72 quoting Woodke, 70
F.3d at 985. The court found that only those acts which were, in and of
themselves, “wrongful” or had a “close nexus” to the wrong could form
the basis of proper venue. Id. at 1372.

That court also noted that “[n]othing in the record shows that Defendant took

any actions in this district with respect to the challenged statutes. While

Plaintiffs argue that they were adversely impacted by these statutes in this

district, that fact has no bearing on the Court's analysis. The relevant inquiry

2
 Case 5:20-cv-01426-LCB Document 13 Filed 09/28/20 Page 3 of 3

for the Court rests on the activities of Defendant, and not Plaintiffs.” Id. at 4.

That court also noted that “the venue statute serves to protect a defendant[.]”

Id.

This Court finds Florida Hometown Democracy, Inc. to be persuasive.

Like the plaintiffs in that case, the plaintiffs here have alleged that they were

adversely impacted by the defendants’ orders in this district. However, there

are no allegations that the defendants actually took any actions in this district.

Therefore, in focusing on the activities of the defendants, as the Eleventh

Circuit has instructed, see Jenkins Brick, 321 F.3d at 1371-72, the Court finds

that venue is proper in the district in which the challenged orders were issued,

i.e., the Middle District of Alabama.

For the foregoing reasons, the defendants’ motion to transfer venue

(Doc. 9) is GRANTED. The Clerk is ORDERED to TRANSFER this case

to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.

DONE and ORDERED September 28, 2020.

_________________________________
LILES C. BURKE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE