Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Sharisse Stephenson initially filed a pro se complaint alleging that Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. After counsel appeared for her, she amended the complaint to retain the ERISA claims and add state-law claims and a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 12203 for interference or retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
After Sun Life answered, the court entered a scheduling order and twice extended deadlines at the parties’ joint request. Stephenson later moved to compel discovery, Sun Life moved for summary judgment, and Stephenson sought additional time to respond. Only after those proceedings did Stephenson move under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the case from the Northern District of Texas to the Eastern District of Virginia.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied Stephenson’s motion to transfer. Applying Fifth Circuit precedent, the court explained that a party seeking transfer under Section 1404(a) must clearly demonstrate good cause by showing that transfer would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interest of justice. It is not enough to show merely that another forum is more likely than not to be more convenient.
After considering the applicable factors, the parties’ filings, and the case’s procedural history, the court concluded that Stephenson had not clearly established that the Eastern District of Virginia was a more convenient forum. The court therefore respected her original choice of venue. It also denied her motion to expedite as moot and, following the separate denial of her motion to compel, set a supplemental schedule for briefing Sun Life’s pending summary-judgment motion.
Key Takeaways
- A party seeking transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) must clearly establish good cause based on convenience and the interest of justice.
- When the proposed transferee forum is not clearly more convenient, the plaintiff’s original choice of venue should be respected.
- The litigation will remain in the Northern District of Texas, with Stephenson’s summary-judgment response due August 31, 2026, and Sun Life’s reply due September 15, 2026.
Why It Matters
The order underscores the demanding standard for transferring venue after litigation is already underway. A movant must provide evidence and argument showing that the proposed forum is clearly more convenient, particularly where the parties have already engaged in scheduling, discovery disputes, and dispositive-motion practice in the original court.
The ruling does not resolve the merits of Stephenson’s ERISA, ADA, or state-law claims. Those claims remain pending for consideration through Sun Life’s summary-judgment motion.