Preview
IN THE STATE COURT OF GWINNETT COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA
RONARDO REEVES and DAISHA
REEVES, Individually and As Parents and
Natural Guardians of LAYLA REEVES, a
Minor,
CIVIL ACTION
Plaintiffs, FILE NO. 22-C-02623-S4
vs.
CHILDTIME CHILDCARE, INC. D/B/A
CHILDTIME OF KINGSLAND and
OLIVIA LYNN JONES,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
COME NOW, Plaintiffs Ronardo Reeves and Daisha Reeves, Individually and As
Parents and Natural Guardians of Layla Reeves, a minor, and file this Plaintiffs’ Response to
Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue and show the Court as follows:
INTRODUCTION
Layla Reeves, approximately seven (7) months old in April 2022, was enrolled in the
nursery program at Defendant Childtime’s daycare facility. On April 8, 2022, Plaintiffs Ronardo
and Daisha Reeves, left their daughter in the care of Defendant Childtime, uninjured. When they
returned to pick Layla up later in the day, she had a fractured skull and a concussion, amongst
other injuries. (See generally Plaintiff’s Complaint.) Layla was rushed to the hospital in
Kingsland, Georgia, and ultimately life-flighted to Wolfson Children’s Hospital in Jacksonville,
Florida.
The manner in which Layla was injured is still not clear. According to Layla’s medical
1
providers, there is reason to believe that one (1) or more individuals are concealing the mechanism
of her injury(ies). In fact, the on-duty employee, who was responsible for providing watchful
oversight to Layla, was arrested and charged with cruelty to children as a result of her actions in
this matter.
Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit to seek justice for their daughter and to attempt to learn how
and why she was so seriously injured while at Defendant Childtime’s facility.
I. FACTS RELEVANT TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER
Defendant Childtime has a broad National and State presence. Defendant Childtime is a
corporation based in Michigan. Defendant Childtime owns and runs daycare facilities all over the
United States. In fact, according to the Company’s website, it has facilities in more than twenty
(20) states. 1 In Georgia, alone, Defendant Childtime operates eleven (11) different facilities. 2
Notably, of the daycares that Defendant Childtime operates in Georgia, the majority are in, or
around, Gwinnett County. Defendant Childtime lists facilities in: Stone Mountain, Lilburn, two
(2) in Lawrenceville, Lithonia, Norcross, and Snellville. Thus, to say that Defendant has
connections in and around Gwinnett County would be an understatement -- most of their business
in Georgia is done within a few miles of this Court. This reality is likely why Defendant Childtime
elected Gwinnett County for its Registered Agent and selected a law firm from the metropolitan
Atlanta area to serve as its defense counsel. Curiously, despite the above undisputed facts,
Defendant now claims that Gwinnett County is not a convenient forum in which to litigate.
1 https://www.childtime.com/child-care-centers/find-a-school/
2 https://www.childtime.com/child-care-centers/find-a-school/search-
results/?state=GA
2
II. ARGUMENT AND CITATION TO AUTHORITY
GEORGIA’S DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS
Under O.C.G.A. 9-10-31.1 (a) (7), Georgia courts afford plaintiffs deference to their
chosen forum. That same statue, however, provides that a court may decline to hear a case if it
“finds that in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties and witnesses a claim or
action would be more properly heard in a forum outside this state[.]” O.C.G.A. 9-10-31.1 (a). “A
defendant seeking to change venue by reason of forum non conveniens has a heavy burden.” Park
Ave. Bank v. Steamnboat City Dev. Co., L.P., 317 Ga. App. 289 (2012), overruled on other grounds
Wang v. Liu, 292 Ga. 568 (2013).
In order to prevail on their motion, the Defendants must prove two (2) required elements:
(1) the alternative venue must be proper, and (2) the transfer away from the plaintiff’s chosen
county must be justified by the specific facts of the case. See O.C.G.A. 9-10-31-1(a). The first
element is not at issue in this Motion. As to the second element, the statute lists seven (7) factors
that the trail court must consider:
1. Relative ease of access to sources of proof;
2. Availability and cost of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses;
3. Possibility of viewing the premises, if viewing would be appropriate to the action;
4. Unnecessary expense or trouble to the defendant not necessary to the plaintiff’s own
right to pursue his or her remedy;
5. Administrative difficulties for the forum courts;
6. Existence of local interests in deciding the case locally; and
7. The traditional deference given to a plaintiffs’ choice of forum.
O.C.G.A. 9-10-31.1 (a).
3
Georgia’s forum non conveniens statute was adopted in derogation of the common law,
and therefore “must be limited strictly to the meaning of the language employed, and not extended
beyond the plain and explicit terms of the statue.” La Fontaine v. Signature Research, Inc., 305
Ga. 107,109 (2019) (internal citations omitted). The movant-the Defendants, here-bear the burden
of proving that the seven factors support the requested transfer. See R.J. Taylor mem. Hosp. v.
Beck, 280 Ga. 600,662 (3) (2006).
The trial court is granted wide latitude to determine whether transfer is warranted under
the specific facts of the case, which will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. The John
Hardy Group v. Cayo Largo Hotel Assocs., 286 Ga. App. 588, 590 (2) (2007). “The trial court
must set out upon the records the essential reasoning that forms the basis for its exercise of
discretion in deciding whether to grant a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens”. Woodard
Events, LLC v. Coffee House Indus, LLC, 341 Ga. App. 526, 527 (2017) (internal citations
omitted). “Although the statute does not require it, the better practice is for the trial court to make
specific findings on each of the enumerated statutory factors.” Hawkins v. Blair, 334 Ga. App.
898, 901 (2015) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
THE SEVEN (7) FACTORS
Gwinnett County is a proper venue, and it is the one (1) in which Plaintiffs chose to bring
their case. This could not have been a surprise to Defendant, given its robust presence in Gwinnett
County and selection of a Registered Agent therein. Camden County is likewise a proper venue.
Thus, the Court must weigh the seven (7) factors to determine whether “the interest of justice” and
“convenience of the parties” requires this Court to override Plaintiffs’ chosen venue and transfer
this case. When viewed in the totality in which it must be considered, the weight of the evidence
demonstrates that the Defendants have not met their burden and that their Motion shall be denied.
4
1. Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof.
Here, the access to “proof” contemplated by the statute is simple. This case is almost
entirely based upon video evidence from the daycare (some of which Plaintiffs already possess),
medical records and bills (most of which the parties already possess), and documentary evidence
from the daycare (like employee files, policies and procedures, and the like---some of which
Plaintiffs already possess).
With respect to the few witnesses that must be deposed, Plaintiffs’ counsel and Defendants’
counsel have already agreed that they will travel to the witnesses rather than making the witnesses
travel to the Atlanta area. Thus, there is no travel burden upon witnesses for providing depositions.
Lastly, a key witness in this case is likely to be Dr. Kathleen Dully, a child abuse
pediatrician located at the University of Florida, in Gainesville, Florida. Dr. Dully was referred
Layla’s case by the Kingsland Police Department and conducted an extensive review of the facts
and circumstances, as well as Layla’s injuries. Counsel will need to travel to Gainesville, Florida
to take her discovery deposition, and likely evidentiary deposition; thus, as she resides and works
far outside the venue of any Court in Georgia, this factor weighs against transferring the case.
As noted above, if Defendant Childtime truly believed that access to proof and witnesses
in Camden County was a serious concern in this case, the company would not have retained
counsel located in Atlanta, far closer to Gwinnett County than the facility.
In sum, this element is neutral at best. Since the Defendants bear the burden of proof that
“the interest of justice and…convenience of the parties,” demands a transfer, it this favors
Plaintiffs’ position that transfer is unnecessary and unwarranted. See O.C.G.A. 9-10-31.1 (a).
2. Availability and Cost of Compulsory Process for Attendance of Unwilling Witnesses.
There is little difference between this factor and the Defendants’ analysis of the first factor.
5
First, this is not a case where any witness is likely to be unwilling to testify. All of Defendant
Childtime’s employees will, presumably, cooperate with their own counsel in an effort to defend
the case. Plaintiffs will clearly sit for depositions and willingly appear at trial. Investigating law
enforcement is highly unlikely to resist testifying, particularly since the Kingsland Police
Department investigated this matter and referred it to a child abuse specialist.
Next, any expert in the case will almost certainly reside outside the very small Camden
community and likely outside the State of Georgia. As noted, the primary medical providers are
located in Florida, outside the venue of either Camden or Gwinnett Counties.
Again, when considered in itstotality, the second element is neutral at best. Since the
Defendants bear the burden of proof that “the interest of justice and…convenience of the parties,”
demands a transfer, it this favors Plaintiff’s argument that transfer is unnecessary and unwarranted.
See O.C.G.A. 9-10-31.1 (a).
3. Possibility if Viewing of the Premises.
Defendants strain to argue that this factor weighs in their favor because the incident
occurred in Camden County. A site visit will not be necessary, as there is video evidence from the
daycare classroom. Plaintiffs’ counsel has never heard of a daycare case where a site visit to the
scene of the incident was warranted or necessary. Furthermore, Plaintiffs hereby stipulate that
they will not ask the Court to allow the jury to visit the daycare. It is simply not necessary
under the facts of this case.
In sum, this factor, again, is neutral at best, but realistically not applicable, and thus favors
Plaintiffs’ position against transferring this matter to another County.
4. Unnecessary Expense or Trouble to the Defendant.
Any argument that Defendants would be subjected to unnecessary trouble or expense in
6
defending this case in Gwinnett County is diluted by the fact that Defendant selected a
metropolitan Atlanta based firm. Certainly, when considering counsel, Defendant had zero (0)
concern about the costs and expenses associated with its lawyers travelling to and from Camden
County for the few necessary depositions. To make this argument, in the face of choosing counsel
in Atlanta, such a concern at this stage is curious.
When considering Defendants’ choice in selecting its counsel, this factor weighs in favor
of Plaintiffs’ chosen forum of Gwinnett County.
5. Administrative Difficulties for the Forum Courts.
There is no meaningful administrative difference between Camden County and Gwinnett
County, and this factor is neutral. This is a simple daycare negligence case, which, if trial is
necessary, could likely be tried to verdict in 3 days, inclusive of jury selection. This element favors
Plaintiffs’ position against transferring this matter to another County.
6. Existence of Local Interests in Deciding the Case Locally.
Plaintiffs concede that this factor may tilt slightly in the Defendant’s favor. However, it
should not be overlooked that Gwinnett County has a tremendous interest in deciding this matter.
Gwinnett appears to be the County in which Defendant’s operations in Georgia are focused.
Gwinnett is apparently home to many of Defendant’s facilities and the County in which Defendant
selected its Registered Agent.
7. The Traditional Deference Given to a Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum.
Importantly, Defendant does not and cannot argue that venue is improper in Gwinnett
County. Under the well-pled allegations of the Complaint, Gwinnett County is where Defendant
maintains its registered agent and where it chose to be sued.
It goes without saying that this factor weighs very heavily in favor of Plaintiffs’ chosen
7
forum, Gwinnett County. This factor, taken in conjunction with the balance of the other six (6)
factors, shows that Defendants have not, and cannot, meet its burden of proof that transfer is
required. This Court is a proper and fair venue for this case, for the witnesses, and for all parties
involved.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Court deny the
Defendant’s Motion, and let them proceed in this Court, the proper and chosen venue.
Respectfully submitted this 28th Day of July, 2022.
LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW E. GOLDNER, LLC
/S/ ANDREW E. GOLDNER
ANDREW E. GOLDNER
GEORGIA STATE BAR NO. 297329
1040 CROWN POINTE PKWY
SUITE 800
ATLANTA, GA 30338
(404) 869-1580 OFFICE
(404) 393-1099 FAX
ANDY@GOLDNERLEGAL.COM
BARNES & COHEN, P.A.
/S/ PATRICK B. SULLIVAN
PATRICK B. SULLIVAN, ESQ.
GEORGIA STATE BAR NO. 511154
1511 HIGHWAY 40 EAST
KINGSLAND, GA 31548
(912) 342-2611 OFFICE
(912) 673-7761 FAX
PSULLIVAN@BBCJUSTICE.COM ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
8
IN THE STATE COURT OF GWINNETT COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA
RONARDO REEVES and DAISHA
REEVES, Individually and As Parents and
Natural Guardians of LAYLA REEVES, a
Minor,
CIVIL ACTION
Plaintiffs, FILE NO. 22-C-02623-S4
vs.
CHILDTIME CHILDCARE, INC. D/B/A
CHILDTIME OF KINGSLAND and
OLIVIA LYNN JONES,
Defendants.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE
TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE has this day been served upon all counsel of
record by Georgia Odyssey E-File, as follows:
FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP
E. ANDREW TREESE, ESQ.
GRACE CALLANAN, ESQ.
100 GALLERIA PARKWAY
SUITE 1600
ATLANTA, GA 30339-5948
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
This 28th Day of July, 2022.
9
LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW E. GOLDNER, LLC
/S/ ANDREW E. GOLDNER
ANDREW E. GOLDNER
GEORGIA STATE BAR NUMBER 297329
1040 CROWN POINTE PKWY
SUITE 800
ATLANTA, GA 30338
(404)869-1580 OFFICE
(404)393-1099 FAX
ANDY@GOLDNERLEGAL.COM ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
10
Preview
IN THE STATE COURT OF GWINNETT COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA RONARDO REEVES and DAISHA REEVES, Individually and As Parents and Natural Guardians of LAYLA REEVES, a Minor, CIVIL ACTION Plaintiffs, FILE NO. 22-C-02623-S4 vs. CHILDTIME CHILDCARE, INC. D/B/A CHILDTIME OF KINGSLAND and OLIVIA LYNN JONES, Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE COME NOW, Plaintiffs Ronardo Reeves and Daisha Reeves, Individually and As Parents and Natural Guardians of Layla Reeves, a minor, and file this Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue and show the Court as follows: INTRODUCTION Layla Reeves, approximately seven (7) months old in April 2022, was enrolled in the nursery program at Defendant Childtime’s daycare facility. On April 8, 2022, Plaintiffs Ronardo and Daisha Reeves, left their daughter in the care of Defendant Childtime, uninjured. When they returned to pick Layla up later in the day, she had a fractured skull and a concussion, amongst other injuries. (See generally Plaintiff’s Complaint.) Layla was rushed to the hospital in Kingsland, Georgia, and ultimately life-flighted to Wolfson Children’s Hospital in Jacksonville, Florida. The manner in which Layla was injured is still not clear. According to Layla’s medical 1 providers, there is reason to believe that one (1) or more individuals are concealing the mechanism of her injury(ies). In fact, the on-duty employee, who was responsible for providing watchful oversight to Layla, was arrested and charged with cruelty to children as a result of her actions in this matter. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit to seek justice for their daughter and to attempt to learn how and why she was so seriously injured while at Defendant Childtime’s facility. I. FACTS RELEVANT TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER Defendant Childtime has a broad National and State presence. Defendant Childtime is a corporation based in Michigan. Defendant Childtime owns and runs daycare facilities all over the United States. In fact, according to the Company’s website, it has facilities in more than twenty (20) states. 1 In Georgia, alone, Defendant Childtime operates eleven (11) different facilities. 2 Notably, of the daycares that Defendant Childtime operates in Georgia, the majority are in, or around, Gwinnett County. Defendant Childtime lists facilities in: Stone Mountain, Lilburn, two (2) in Lawrenceville, Lithonia, Norcross, and Snellville. Thus, to say that Defendant has connections in and around Gwinnett County would be an understatement -- most of their business in Georgia is done within a few miles of this Court. This reality is likely why Defendant Childtime elected Gwinnett County for its Registered Agent and selected a law firm from the metropolitan Atlanta area to serve as its defense counsel. Curiously, despite the above undisputed facts, Defendant now claims that Gwinnett County is not a convenient forum in which to litigate. 1 https://www.childtime.com/child-care-centers/find-a-school/ 2 https://www.childtime.com/child-care-centers/find-a-school/search- results/?state=GA 2 II. ARGUMENT AND CITATION TO AUTHORITY GEORGIA’S DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS Under O.C.G.A. 9-10-31.1 (a) (7), Georgia courts afford plaintiffs deference to their chosen forum. That same statue, however, provides that a court may decline to hear a case if it “finds that in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties and witnesses a claim or action would be more properly heard in a forum outside this state[.]” O.C.G.A. 9-10-31.1 (a). “A defendant seeking to change venue by reason of forum non conveniens has a heavy burden.” Park Ave. Bank v. Steamnboat City Dev. Co., L.P., 317 Ga. App. 289 (2012), overruled on other grounds Wang v. Liu, 292 Ga. 568 (2013). In order to prevail on their motion, the Defendants must prove two (2) required elements: (1) the alternative venue must be proper, and (2) the transfer away from the plaintiff’s chosen county must be justified by the specific facts of the case. See O.C.G.A. 9-10-31-1(a). The first element is not at issue in this Motion. As to the second element, the statute lists seven (7) factors that the trail court must consider: 1. Relative ease of access to sources of proof; 2. Availability and cost of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses; 3. Possibility of viewing the premises, if viewing would be appropriate to the action; 4. Unnecessary expense or trouble to the defendant not necessary to the plaintiff’s own right to pursue his or her remedy; 5. Administrative difficulties for the forum courts; 6. Existence of local interests in deciding the case locally; and 7. The traditional deference given to a plaintiffs’ choice of forum. O.C.G.A. 9-10-31.1 (a). 3 Georgia’s forum non conveniens statute was adopted in derogation of the common law, and therefore “must be limited strictly to the meaning of the language employed, and not extended beyond the plain and explicit terms of the statue.” La Fontaine v. Signature Research, Inc., 305 Ga. 107,109 (2019) (internal citations omitted). The movant-the Defendants, here-bear the burden of proving that the seven factors support the requested transfer. See R.J. Taylor mem. Hosp. v. Beck, 280 Ga. 600,662 (3) (2006). The trial court is granted wide latitude to determine whether transfer is warranted under the specific facts of the case, which will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. The John Hardy Group v. Cayo Largo Hotel Assocs., 286 Ga. App. 588, 590 (2) (2007). “The trial court must set out upon the records the essential reasoning that forms the basis for its exercise of discretion in deciding whether to grant a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens”. Woodard Events, LLC v. Coffee House Indus, LLC, 341 Ga. App. 526, 527 (2017) (internal citations omitted). “Although the statute does not require it, the better practice is for the trial court to make specific findings on each of the enumerated statutory factors.” Hawkins v. Blair, 334 Ga. App. 898, 901 (2015) (internal quotations and citations omitted). THE SEVEN (7) FACTORS Gwinnett County is a proper venue, and it is the one (1) in which Plaintiffs chose to bring their case. This could not have been a surprise to Defendant, given its robust presence in Gwinnett County and selection of a Registered Agent therein. Camden County is likewise a proper venue. Thus, the Court must weigh the seven (7) factors to determine whether “the interest of justice” and “convenience of the parties” requires this Court to override Plaintiffs’ chosen venue and transfer this case. When viewed in the totality in which it must be considered, the weight of the evidence demonstrates that the Defendants have not met their burden and that their Motion shall be denied. 4 1. Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof. Here, the access to “proof” contemplated by the statute is simple. This case is almost entirely based upon video evidence from the daycare (some of which Plaintiffs already possess), medical records and bills (most of which the parties already possess), and documentary evidence from the daycare (like employee files, policies and procedures, and the like---some of which Plaintiffs already possess). With respect to the few witnesses that must be deposed, Plaintiffs’ counsel and Defendants’ counsel have already agreed that they will travel to the witnesses rather than making the witnesses travel to the Atlanta area. Thus, there is no travel burden upon witnesses for providing depositions. Lastly, a key witness in this case is likely to be Dr. Kathleen Dully, a child abuse pediatrician located at the University of Florida, in Gainesville, Florida. Dr. Dully was referred Layla’s case by the Kingsland Police Department and conducted an extensive review of the facts and circumstances, as well as Layla’s injuries. Counsel will need to travel to Gainesville, Florida to take her discovery deposition, and likely evidentiary deposition; thus, as she resides and works far outside the venue of any Court in Georgia, this factor weighs against transferring the case. As noted above, if Defendant Childtime truly believed that access to proof and witnesses in Camden County was a serious concern in this case, the company would not have retained counsel located in Atlanta, far closer to Gwinnett County than the facility. In sum, this element is neutral at best. Since the Defendants bear the burden of proof that “the interest of justice and…convenience of the parties,” demands a transfer, it this favors Plaintiffs’ position that transfer is unnecessary and unwarranted. See O.C.G.A. 9-10-31.1 (a). 2. Availability and Cost of Compulsory Process for Attendance of Unwilling Witnesses. There is little difference between this factor and the Defendants’ analysis of the first factor. 5 First, this is not a case where any witness is likely to be unwilling to testify. All of Defendant Childtime’s employees will, presumably, cooperate with their own counsel in an effort to defend the case. Plaintiffs will clearly sit for depositions and willingly appear at trial. Investigating law enforcement is highly unlikely to resist testifying, particularly since the Kingsland Police Department investigated this matter and referred it to a child abuse specialist. Next, any expert in the case will almost certainly reside outside the very small Camden community and likely outside the State of Georgia. As noted, the primary medical providers are located in Florida, outside the venue of either Camden or Gwinnett Counties. Again, when considered in itstotality, the second element is neutral at best. Since the Defendants bear the burden of proof that “the interest of justice and…convenience of the parties,” demands a transfer, it this favors Plaintiff’s argument that transfer is unnecessary and unwarranted. See O.C.G.A. 9-10-31.1 (a). 3. Possibility if Viewing of the Premises. Defendants strain to argue that this factor weighs in their favor because the incident occurred in Camden County. A site visit will not be necessary, as there is video evidence from the daycare classroom. Plaintiffs’ counsel has never heard of a daycare case where a site visit to the scene of the incident was warranted or necessary. Furthermore, Plaintiffs hereby stipulate that they will not ask the Court to allow the jury to visit the daycare. It is simply not necessary under the facts of this case. In sum, this factor, again, is neutral at best, but realistically not applicable, and thus favors Plaintiffs’ position against transferring this matter to another County. 4. Unnecessary Expense or Trouble to the Defendant. Any argument that Defendants would be subjected to unnecessary trouble or expense in 6 defending this case in Gwinnett County is diluted by the fact that Defendant selected a metropolitan Atlanta based firm. Certainly, when considering counsel, Defendant had zero (0) concern about the costs and expenses associated with its lawyers travelling to and from Camden County for the few necessary depositions. To make this argument, in the face of choosing counsel in Atlanta, such a concern at this stage is curious. When considering Defendants’ choice in selecting its counsel, this factor weighs in favor of Plaintiffs’ chosen forum of Gwinnett County. 5. Administrative Difficulties for the Forum Courts. There is no meaningful administrative difference between Camden County and Gwinnett County, and this factor is neutral. This is a simple daycare negligence case, which, if trial is necessary, could likely be tried to verdict in 3 days, inclusive of jury selection. This element favors Plaintiffs’ position against transferring this matter to another County. 6. Existence of Local Interests in Deciding the Case Locally. Plaintiffs concede that this factor may tilt slightly in the Defendant’s favor. However, it should not be overlooked that Gwinnett County has a tremendous interest in deciding this matter. Gwinnett appears to be the County in which Defendant’s operations in Georgia are focused. Gwinnett is apparently home to many of Defendant’s facilities and the County in which Defendant selected its Registered Agent. 7. The Traditional Deference Given to a Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum. Importantly, Defendant does not and cannot argue that venue is improper in Gwinnett County. Under the well-pled allegations of the Complaint, Gwinnett County is where Defendant maintains its registered agent and where it chose to be sued. It goes without saying that this factor weighs very heavily in favor of Plaintiffs’ chosen 7 forum, Gwinnett County. This factor, taken in conjunction with the balance of the other six (6) factors, shows that Defendants have not, and cannot, meet its burden of proof that transfer is required. This Court is a proper and fair venue for this case, for the witnesses, and for all parties involved. III. Conclusion For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Court deny the Defendant’s Motion, and let them proceed in this Court, the proper and chosen venue. Respectfully submitted this 28th Day of July, 2022. LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW E. GOLDNER, LLC /S/ ANDREW E. GOLDNER ANDREW E. GOLDNER GEORGIA STATE BAR NO. 297329 1040 CROWN POINTE PKWY SUITE 800 ATLANTA, GA 30338 (404) 869-1580 OFFICE (404) 393-1099 FAX ANDY@GOLDNERLEGAL.COM BARNES & COHEN, P.A. /S/ PATRICK B. SULLIVAN PATRICK B. SULLIVAN, ESQ. GEORGIA STATE BAR NO. 511154 1511 HIGHWAY 40 EAST KINGSLAND, GA 31548 (912) 342-2611 OFFICE (912) 673-7761 FAX PSULLIVAN@BBCJUSTICE.COM ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 8 IN THE STATE COURT OF GWINNETT COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA RONARDO REEVES and DAISHA REEVES, Individually and As Parents and Natural Guardians of LAYLA REEVES, a Minor, CIVIL ACTION Plaintiffs, FILE NO. 22-C-02623-S4 vs. CHILDTIME CHILDCARE, INC. D/B/A CHILDTIME OF KINGSLAND and OLIVIA LYNN JONES, Defendants. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE has this day been served upon all counsel of record by Georgia Odyssey E-File, as follows: FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP E. ANDREW TREESE, ESQ. GRACE CALLANAN, ESQ. 100 GALLERIA PARKWAY SUITE 1600 ATLANTA, GA 30339-5948 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT This 28th Day of July, 2022. 9 LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW E. GOLDNER, LLC /S/ ANDREW E. GOLDNER ANDREW E. GOLDNER GEORGIA STATE BAR NUMBER 297329 1040 CROWN POINTE PKWY SUITE 800 ATLANTA, GA 30338 (404)869-1580 OFFICE (404)393-1099 FAX ANDY@GOLDNERLEGAL.COM ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS 10