Reliastar Life Insurance Company v. Damon et al
Filing
31
OPINION AND ORDER denying 20 Motion to Change Venue. Defendants Joseph Spina, Charles Spina, and Dominic Spina shall file responsive pleadings to plaintiff's Amended Complaint within fourteen days of this Opinion and Order. See Opinion and Order for details. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 8/12/2016. (AMB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
RELIASTAR
COMPANY,
LIFE
INSURANCE
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 2:16-cv-304-FtM-29CM
CINDY
ANN
DAMON,
JOSEPH
SPINA,
CHARLES
SPINA,
DOMINIC SPINA, and JOSEPH
SPINA, as Executor of the
Estate of Victor Spina,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on defendant Joseph Spina's
Motion to Transfer Venue to United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, Trenton (Doc. #20) filed on June 2, 2016.
Joseph Spina certifies that he has conferred with plaintiff and
plaintiff agrees to the transfer of venue to New Jersey.
11.)
(Id. ¶
Defendants Charles Spina and Dominic Spina join Joseph
Spina’s Motion to Transfer.
(Docs. ##26, 27.)
On June 9, 2016,
defendant Cindy Damon filed a Response in Opposition to Joseph
Spina’s Motion to Transfer Venue (Doc. #25), to which Joseph Spina
filed a Reply (Doc. #30) on June 17, 2016.
I.
Plaintiff, Reliastar Life Insurance Company (“Reliastar”)
brought this interpleader action on April 25, 2016. (Docs. ##1,
19.) 1
Plaintiff is an insurance company that issued a life
insurance policy to Victor Spina on or about August 15, 2013. (Doc.
#19, ¶ 7.)
On or about July 24, 2014, Victor Spina completed the
beneficiary designation where he named Cindy Damon, Charles Spina,
and Dominic Spina as co-primary beneficiaries under the policy,
and listed Joseph Spina as a contingent beneficiary.
(Id. ¶¶ 10,
13-16.)
On or about July 16, 2015, Victor Spina attempted to change
the
beneficiary
designations
on
the
policy
by
completing
a
beneficiary designation form naming Joseph Spina as the sole
primary
beneficiary.
(Id.
¶
11.)
On
the
same
beneficiary
designation form, Victor Spina also checked off a box indicating
that the sole primary beneficiary was a trust created by his Last
Will
and
Testament.
(Id.)
Due
to
these
designations
being
inconsistent, plaintiff returned the beneficiary designation form
to Victor Spina at his Naples, Florida address by correspondence
dated July 22, 2015.
(Id.)
Along with the correspondence,
plaintiff sent Victor Spina a new beneficiary designation form to
complete and return.
(Id.)
Victor Spina failed to complete and
return another beneficiary designation form.
On December 21, 2015, Victor Spina died of natural causes.
(Id. ¶ 12.)
At the time of his death, the policy was in full
1
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint for Interpleader (Doc.
#19) on May 25, 2016.
- 2 -
force and effect and, upon information and belief, Cindy Damon was
entitled to receive 50% of the death benefits, Charles Spina was
entitled to receive 25% of the death benefits, and Dominic Spina
was entitled to receive 25% of the death benefits.
15.)
(Id. ¶¶ 13-
Joseph Spina was a contingent beneficiary and entitled to
recover 100% of the death benefits. (Id. ¶ 16.)
On February 1,
2016, Cindy Damon submitted a claim for death benefits under the
policy, and on February 10, 2016, Charles Spina, Joseph Spina, and
Dominic Spina submitted claims for death benefits under the policy.
(Id. ¶¶ 18-21.)
Victor Spina’s Last Will and Testament was
admitted to probate in Manmouth County, New Jersey, and Joseph
Spina has been named as the executor. (Id. ¶ 22; Doc. #20, pp. 2,
6-7.)
Plaintiff brought this interpleader action to determine the
rightful beneficiaries of the proceeds of Victor Spina’s life
insurance policy.
(Doc. #19.)
Defendant Joseph Spina moves to
transfer venue to the United States District Court for the District
Court of New Jersey, Trenton.
(Doc. #20.)
Defendants Charles
Spina and Dominic Spina, residents of North Carolina and South
Carolina, respectively, agree and join Joseph Spina’s motion.
(Docs. ##26, 27.)
Further, Joseph Spina represents that he has
conferred
with
plaintiff
and
transfer.
(Doc. #20, p. 3.)
transfer.
plaintiff
(Doc. #25.)
does
not
oppose
the
Defendant Cindy Damon opposes the
- 3 -
II.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), “[f]or 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.”
The party seeking transfer under
1404(a) has the burden of establishing that the transferee forum
is more convenient and transfer is appropriate.
Trinity Christian
Ctr. of Santa Ana, Inc. v. New Frontier Media, Inc., 761 F. Supp.
2d 1322, 1326 (M.D. Fla. 2010) (quoting In re Ricoh Corp., 870
F.2d 570, 573 (1989)).
The determination of whether to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1404(a) involves a two-pronged inquiry.
The Court must first
determine that the alternative venue is one in which the action
could originally have been brought, then the court must balance
the convenience factors in determining if transfer is justified.
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
When evaluating a motion to transfer venue,
the court considers the following factors:
(1) the convenience of the witnesses; (2) the location
of relevant documents and the relative ease of access to
sources of proof; (3) the convenience of the parties;
(4) the locus of operative facts; (5) the availability
of process to compel the attendance of unwilling
witnesses; (6) the relative means of the parties; (7) a
forum's familiarity with the governing law; (8) the
weight accorded a plaintiff's choice of forum; and (9)
trial efficiency and the interests of justice, based on
the totality of the circumstances.
- 4 -
Manuel v. Convergys Corp., 430 F.3d 1132, 1135 n.1 (11th Cir. 2005)
(citation omitted).
Generally, when weighing these factors, the
court must keep in mind that there is a “strong presumption against
disturbing plaintiff[’s] initial forum choice.”
SME Racks, Inc.
v. Sistemas Mecanicos Para Electronica, S.A., 382 F.3d 1097, 1100
(11th Cir. 2004).
Thus, in most cases, the plaintiff's choice of
forum should not be disturbed unless the balance is strongly in
favor of the defendant.
“where
the
Plaintiff
Id.
is
However, in an interpleader action
nothing
more
than
a
disinterested
stakeholder” that will likely be dismissed at an early stage of
the proceedings, the plaintiff’s initial choice of forum is not
given the same weight and consideration.
Orsek, P.A. v. Servicios
Legales De Mesoamerica A De R.L., 699 F. Supp. 2d 1344, 1353 (S.D.
Fla. 2010).
A. Judicial District Where the Case May Have Been Brought
This action was brought pursuant to the Federal Interpleader
Act, which provides federal courts with original jurisdiction over
civil interpleader actions filed by any person or entity having in
their custody or possession money or property of at least $500 or
issuing a policy of insurance of at least $500, if there are two
or
more
adverse
claimants
entitlement to the money.
of
diverse
citizenship
28 U.S.C. § 1335(a).
claiming
The Act provides
that any civil interpleader action “may be brought in the judicial
- 5 -
district in which one or more of the claimants reside.”
28 U.S.C.
§ 1397.
Joseph Spina seeks to transfer the case to the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, Trenton.
#20.)
(Doc.
Joseph Spina resides in Monmouth County, New Jersey, which
is in the judicial district of the District of New Jersey, Trenton.
Since this is a judicial district in which the action could
originally have been brought, the first prong is satisfied.
B. Convenience
As to the second prong, the Court will analyze each of the
“convenience” factors in turn:
Convenience of the Witnesses:
Joseph Spina asserts that
there are five witnesses in or around New Jersey that will testify
as to the relationship between Cindy Damon and Victor Spina after
Victor was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer and regarding events that
gave rise to Victor Spina’s intent to amend the beneficiaries of
his life insurance policy.
(Doc. #30, p. 2; Doc. #30-1, p. 4.)
Cindy Damon has identified three witnesses located in Florida.
(Doc. #25, p. 25.)
The Court does not find that the fact that two
more witnesses are located in or near New Jersey than those in
Florida significant enough to justify transfer.
If anything, this
factor weighs slightly in favor of New Jersey.
Location of Relevant Documents and the Relative Ease of Access
to Sources of Proof:
Joseph Spina alleges that the Last Will and
- 6 -
Testament and the insurance policy are located in New Jersey.
The
Court does not give much weight to this factor due to the ease of
exchanging a few documents, the fact that Joseph Spina is only
pointing to two documents, and these documents, or copies thereof,
will likely be exchanged during the course of discovery.
Convenience of the Parties:
located in New Jersey.
located in Florida.
Joseph Spina is the only party
Similarly, Cindy Damon is the only party
Charles Spina and Dominic Spina are residents
of North Carolina and South Carolina, respectively.
Accordingly,
this factor is neutral.
Locus of Operative Facts:
Within Joseph Spina’s motion and
Cindy Damon’s response, it appears that some operative facts
occurred in both Florida and New Jersey.
Cindy asserts that the
insurance policy was obtained in Florida, while Joseph Spina
asserts that the attempted change in beneficiaries was executed
while Victor Spina was in New Jersey.
Joseph Spina asserts that
in June, Cindy Damon kicked Victor Spina out of her place in
Florida, giving rise to Victor’s intent to change the beneficiary
designation of his insurance policy.
Victor Spina then went and
resided with his grandmother, also in Florida.
A short time later,
Victor traveled to and from New Jersey, where he stayed with Joseph
Spina while obtaining treatment.
The Court finds that this factor
neither weighs in favor of or against transfer.
- 7 -
The Availability of Process to Compel the Attendance of
Unwilling Witnesses:
in civil cases.
Rule 45 governs the issuance of subpoenas
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.
Rule 45 provides that a
subpoena may command attendance “within 100 miles of where the
person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business” or
“within the state where the person resides, is employed, or
regularly transacts business in person, if the person . . . is
commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial
expense.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c).
Joseph Spina has identified
three non-party witnesses in New Jersey and two non-party witnesses
in New York — all of which, it appears, are relatives of Joseph
Spina.
(Doc. #30-1, p. 4.)
Based upon the information currently
before the Court, the District Court for New Jersey, Trenton would
have the power to compel attendance of these witnesses.2
Cindy
Damon has identified three non-party witnesses located in Florida.
(Doc. #25, p. 4.)
Similarly, it appears that this Court has the
power to compel the attendance of the witnesses listed by Cindy.
Accordingly, the Court finds that this factor neither weighs in
favor of or against transfer.
The Relative Means of the Parties:
Cindy Damon asserts that
litigating this matter in New Jersey would be extremely difficult
2
The Court cannot definitively state whether the witnesses
residing in Yonkers, New York are within 100 miles of the
courthouse based upon the information it currently has.
- 8 -
for her given that she is a single mother that works as a waitress
and cannot afford to litigate this matter elsewhere.
p. 3.)
(Doc. #25,
Joseph Spina has not alleged any hardships to litigating
this matter in Florida.
Accordingly, this factor weighs against
transfer.
A Forum's Familiarity with the Governing Law:
Cindy Damon
briefly asserts, and Joseph Spina has failed to present any
arguments to the contrary, that Florida law governs the dispute
over the life insurance proceeds.
Assuming this is true, this
factor weighs against transfer.
The Weight Accorded a Plaintiff's Choice of Forum:
As stated
previously, due to the nature of an interpleader action and the
plaintiff
being
a
disinterested
stakeholder,
the
plaintiff’s
choice of forum is not entitled to the weight it would otherwise
receive in a non-interpleader action.
2d at 1353.
Orsek, P.A., 699 F. Supp.
See also Williams v. Lincoln Nat’l
Life Ins. Co.,
121 F. Supp. 3d 1025, at 1035-36 (D. Or. 2015).
Trial Efficiency and the Interests of Justice:
remaining
argument
presented
by
Joseph
Spina
in
The only
support
of
transferring this action to New Jersey is the fact that the probate
action is pending in New Jersey.
The probate action, however, is
pending in the state court, and not the federal court, where this
action would be transferred to.
- 9 -
Even without giving deference to the plaintiff’s choice of
forum, because this case involves an interpleader of funds, the
Court cannot conclude that Joseph Spina has met his burden of
demonstrating that the case is due to be transferred under the
convenience factors.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.
Defendant Joseph Spina’s Motion to Transfer Venue to
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
Trenton (Doc. #20) is DENIED.
2.
Spina
Defendants Joseph Spina, Charles Spina, and Dominic
shall
file
responsive
pleadings
to
plaintiff’s
Amended
Complaint within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of this Opinion and Order
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this __12th__ day of
August, 2016.
Copies:
Counsel of Record
- 10 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?