A divided Fifth Circuit panel on April 7 ordered the Eastern District of Texas to transfer Branch Metrics' antitrust suit against Google to the Northern District of California, finding the district court committed legal error by letting a single factor -- docket speed -- carry the entire denial of Google's transfer motion.
The case, In re Google, L.L.C., No. 25-40788, arose from Branch Metrics' Sherman Act claims against Google filed in E.D. Texas. Branch Metrics drew on documents uncovered in the government's antitrust case against Google in the District of Columbia. Google moved to transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a), and after venue discovery the district court denied the motion.
Writing for the panel, Judge James C. Ho found that every private- and public-interest transfer factor either favored Google or was neutral -- except court congestion, which the district court weighed against transfer. That lone factor carried the day below. "The district court's determination about court congestion singlehandedly defeated transfer, in violation of our precedent," Ho wrote. Judge Catharina Haynes joined the opinion.
The panel emphasized that court congestion is the most speculative of the transfer factors and that median time-to-trial statistics deserve little weight in complex litigation. "The median time-to-trial has little to no bearing on the potential delay in a complex case like this one," the opinion said. Under Fifth Circuit law, no single factor may be given dispositive weight in the transfer analysis.
The court also rejected Branch Metrics' argument that the Clayton Act's liberal venue provisions should heighten deference to its forum choice and alter the Section 1404(a) calculus. The panel held that broad antitrust venue statutes may expand where a plaintiff can sue, but the appropriateness of the chosen forum is still measured by ordinary transfer standards. Courts have consistently rejected the heightened-deference argument for decades, the opinion noted.
Judge Stephen A. Higginson dissented, arguing that the circuit's own precedent in Volkswagen cautioned against replacing district-court discretion with appellate discretion. Higginson wrote that the law around the congestion factor is not clear enough to justify finding the district court indisputably wrong, the high bar mandamus demands.
The decision adds to a line of Fifth Circuit mandamus rulings policing venue denials in the Eastern District of Texas, reinforcing that docket-speed arguments alone cannot preserve cases in plaintiff-friendly forums.