subsequently filed a Motion to Transfer Venue to the Eastern District of Louisiana based on 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and a forum selection clause contained in the agreement that Plaintiff signed upon taking employment with Defendant on November 2, 1993. II. ANALYSIS Defendant seeks a transfer to the Eastern District of Louisiana based on 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Section 1404(a) provides: “For 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Defendants bear the burden of demonstrating to the Court that it should, in its sound discretion, decide to transfer the action. See Peteet v. Dow Chemical Co., 868 F.2d 1428, 1436 (5th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); Time, Inc. v. Manning, 366 F.2d 690, 698 (5th
recognizing that the question of whether the interest of justice is served by the transfer of a juvenile for adult prosecution is a decision within the broad discretion of the district court holding that the decision to allow attorney fees rests with the trial judge and that decision may only be reversed for an abuse of discretion holding that the decision to transfer rests within the sound discretion of the district court holding that whether dismissal or transfer is appropriate lies within the sound discretion of the district court holding that the decision whether to apply the exhaustion requirement in an erisa case is committed to the district courts sound discretion but that the district court abused its discretion by not dismissing the suit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies