Garza v Hoop Retail Stores, LLC

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM ORDER Denying 12 MOTION to Transfer Case to United States District Court for Southern District of Texas, and Granting 14 Cross MOTION to Transfer. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 4/3/2012. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

JAZMIN GARZA,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 11-1275-RGA

v.
HOOP RETAIL STORES LLC,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

The Plaintiff alleges she was injured in a slip and fall in McAllen, Texas, on May 4,
2007. Unfortunately for her, the party she seeks to hold responsible declared bankruptcy in
Delaware. Now before the Court are two motions to determine whether the slip and fall should
be litigated in Delaware or in the Southern District ofTexas. There is no doubt that this Court
should make that decision. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5). It also appears that the debtor's choice of
forum is a significant factor: "[A]s a practical matter, ... motions to transfer are typically not
granted over the objection of the debtor." Hopkins v. Plant Insulation Co., 342 B.R. 703, 716
(D.Del. 2006).
In making this discretionary decision, I have considered the factors set forth in Hopkins.
In brief, the only issues in this case are Texas state law issues, but they should be very simple
ones. There are no related proceedings. This case is not a "core" proceeding. It will be entitled
to a jury trial, and the Plaintiff is a non-debtor party. The choice of the Delaware as a bankruptcy
venue did not involve any forum shopping (at least in relation to this case). In my opinion, the

main factor, which weighs in denying the transfer to Texas, is that this case appears to be the last
substantive matter in the bankruptcy. The main factor which supports transferring the case to
Texas is that the Plaintiff may be hard put to litigate her claim in Delaware (although, as the
Defendant points out, she has no shortage oflawyers, and has litigated in multiple courts so far).
In addition, the Defendant has committed to deposing the Plaintiff and her expert witnesses in
Texas. (D.I. 15, p. 11).
Thus, the Plaintiffs Motion to Transfer (D.I. 12) is DENIED. The Defendant's CrossMotion to Transfer (D.I. 14) is GRANTED. A separate order referring the case to the
Bankruptcy Court for all matters except jury trial will be entered.

United States D' trict Judge 1'/'~/J"'J..._