A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Tuesday instructed U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor to conduct a more thorough analysis before deciding whether to grant a motion from Media Matters to move a lawsuit to the Northern District of California.
In a 12-page opinion, Judges James E. Graves Jr., Edith Brown Clement and Don R. Willett explained that there are eight factors a court must consider when determining whether to grant a motion to transfer venue, but in this case, Judge O’Connor’s “order offers no indication that [he] ever considered or weighed any relevant factors other than timeliness.”
“That approach is inconsistent with our caselaw, especially because ‘[no factor] can be said to be of dispositive weight,’” Judge Graves Jr. wrote for the court in remanding the case back to Judge O’Connor for more consideration.
X filed this suit against Media Matters in November 2023 in response to a series of articles the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit published that were critical of the social media website and its CEO, Elon Musk. One article in particular alleged that advertisements on X from popular brands were placed next to “conspiratorial, antisemitic, and anti-LGBTQ user content,” according to the opinion. Many of the companies mentioned in the article — Apple, Comcast, NBCUniversal and IBM, among them — stopped advertising on X as a result.
X brought claims for interference with contract, business disparagement and interference with prospective economic advantage.
The panel wrote that when deciding on whether to grant a motion to transfer venue, a district court must consider four “private-interest factors,” listed first below, and four “public-interest factors.” Those eight factors are:
- “the relative ease of access to sources of proof”;
- “the availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses”;
- “the cost of attendance for willing witnesses”;
- “all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive”;
- “the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion”;
- “the local interest in having localized interests decided at home”;
- “the familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case”; and
- “the avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws [or in] the application of foreign law.”
Media Matters asked the court to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue and failure to state a claim. Judge O’Connor denied that motion Aug. 29 and denied the nonprofit’s motion to certify an interlocutory appeal on the issue on Jan. 2, according to the opinion.
While discovery was ongoing, on Jan. 31, X amended its response to an interrogatory regarding which advertisers were allegedly affected by Media Matters’ article. Media Matters argued in a March 6 motion to transfer venue to California that none of the advertisers was based in Texas and that a forum selection clause, as well as federal change of venue rules 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 1406, supported its argument that the Northern District of California was the correct venue.
That motion was also denied by Judge O’Connor on May 2, holding in part that Media Matters’ request wasn’t timely because it “waited over three months” after he denied the motion for certification to seek transfer. Judge O’Connor also noted Media Matters had filed 11 motions, “nine of which predate [its] request to transfer” before seeking to transfer venue, and held that the evidence Media Matters pointed to was “insufficient to support their position that the Northern District of Texas is an improper venue.”
Judge O’Connor wrote that Media Matters’ venue motion was part of a “pattern” of gamesmanship and “gave credence to X’s assertion that Media Matters may have ‘waited to learn which way the wind was blowing before requesting transfer,’” the panel wrote in quoting the district court filings.
Judge O’Connor then ordered X to file a brief explaining whether Media Matters should be sanctioned for its conduct by May 21. Media Matters then filed this petition for writ of mandamus seeking the transfer of venue.
The Fifth Circuit determined that Media Matters had demonstrated “a clear and indisputable right to the writ.”
“Media Matters, under this court’s caselaw, has a clear and indisputable right to a venue analysis that at least contemplates the eight public- and private-interest factors,” the panel wrote.
X is represented by Judd E. Stone II, Christopher D. Hilton, Ari Cuenin, Alithea Z. Sullivan and Michael R. Abrams of Stone Hilton and John C. Sullivan of S|L Law in Cedar Hill.
Media Matters is represented by Gregg Costa, Amer S. Ahmed, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Trey Cox and Andrew LeGrand of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Matthew Behncke, Alexandra Grafton, Justin Nelson and Katherine M. Peaslee of Susman Godfrey and Dwight P. Bostwick and Shawn P. Naunton of Zuckerman Spaeder.
The case number is 25-10630.