United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Dublin Division
the Court is the parties' consent motion to change venue.
(Doc. No. 16.) Following Defendants' motion to dismiss
for improper venue, the parties agreed to transfer this case
to the Northern District of Georgia, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1404(a). For the reasons discussed below, the
parties' motion is GRANTED.
October 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed this action in the Dublin
Division of the Southern District of Georgia. Plaintiff
alleges a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq. and under the
Georgia Fair Business Practices Act, O.C.G.A. §§
10-1-390 et seg. (Am. Compl., Doc. No. 12, ¶¶
53-67.) Plaintiff resides in Dublin, Georgia, but Defendant
Collection Recovery Solutions International, LLC
("Defendant CRSI") and Defendant Adamson are both
located in the Northern District of Georgia. Defendant
CRSI's registered agent for service of process is located
in Roswell, Georgia, and Defendant Adamson may be served at
his address in Marietta, Georgia. (Id. ¶¶
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), "[f]or 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 or to any district
or division to which all parties have consented." The
statute necessarily requires a two-step analysis. First, a
court must determine is the transferee district is one where
the case might have been brought. See Game Controller
Tech. LLC v. Sony Comput. Entm't Am. LLC, 994
F.Supp.2d 1268, 1272-73 (S.D. Fla. 2014) ("An action
might have been brought in a transferee district if that
district has subject matter jurisdiction over the action,
venue is proper, and the parties are amenable to service of
process in the transferee forum."). Second, a court must
decide whether the convenience of the parties and witnesses,
the interests of justice, and other relevant factors favor
transfer. See Hampton-Muhamed v. James B. Nutter &
Co., 687 Fed.Appx. 890, 892 (11th Cir. 2017); see
also Manuel v. Convergys Corp., 430 F.3d 1132, 1135 n.l
(11th Cir. 2005) (listing other factors such as the location
of relevant documents and the relative ease of access to
sources of proof, the locus of operative facts, and the
weight accorded to a plaintiff's forum choice).
the parties have consented to the Northern District of
Georgia. Under Section 1404(a), this permits transfer so long
as the applicable factors justify the transfer. See
15 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and
Procedure § 3845 at 82 (4th ed. 2012) (consent
motion "permits transfer even to a district that is not
a proper venue and that does not have personal jurisdiction
over the defendant. . . . [H]owever . . . transfer must be
justified under the factors applicable to Section 1404(a)
motions"). Regardless, both Defendants reside in the
Northern District of Georgia, thereby making it a district in
which the case could have been brought. See 28 U.S.C. §
1391(e)(1) (venue is proper is any district where a Defendant
the relevant question here is whether the Section 1404(a)
factors favor transfer. Litigating in the Northern District
of Georgia will undoubtedly convenience Defendants, as that
is the district in which they both reside. Further, the
Northern District is where Defendants committed the alleged
statutory violations and where sources of proof are located.
In fact, the state judgment and Summons of Garnishment that
underlies this action for unfair debt collection practices
was rendered in Fulton County State Court. (See Am.
Compl. Ex. A.) Although Plaintiff initially chose this
district as a forum for his case, his consent to this motion
obviates the need to place much weight on that choice. On
balance, the interests of justice favor transferring this
case to the Northern District of Georgia.
the parties' consent motion to transfer venue (doc. no.
16) is GRANTED. The Clerk SHALL
TRANSFER this case to the UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
GEORGIA, ATLANTA DIVISION. Further,
Defendants filed a notice of withdrawal of their previous
motion challenging venue in this Court (doc. no. 17),
therefore Defendants' motion to dismiss for improper
venue (doc. no. 15) is DENIED AS MOOT.
Finally, because Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint after Defendants' motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim, Defendants' first motion to
dismiss (doc. no. 10) is DENIED AS MOOT. See
Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co., Inc. v. LexisNexis
Risk Sols. Inc., 823 F.Supp.2d 1306, 1315 (N.D.Ga.
2011). Following transfer, the Court DIRECTS
the Clerk to TERMINATE all deadlines and
motions and CLOSE this case.
 Plaintiff filed his amended complaint
within twenty-one days of Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6)
motion, in compliance with Rule 15 (a) (1) (B)'s time