1ST ORLANDO REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. v. CENTURY 21 REAL ESTATE LLC et al

Filing 24

OPINION fld. Signed by Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh on 8/22/13. (sr, ) [Transferred from njd on 8/28/2013.]

NOl FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
ST
1

ORLANDO REAL ESTATE SERVICES,
INC.. F/D/B/A CENTURY 21 REAL ESTATE
PROFESSIONALS,
Plaintiff,

Hon. Dennis M. Cavanaugh
OPINION
Civ. Act. No. 2:13-CV-01088(DMC)(JAD)

V.

CENTURY 21 REAL ESTATE LLC. TITLE
RESOURCE GROUP AFFILIATES
HOLDINGS, INC. D/B/A TRG
Defendant.
CENTURY 21 REAL ESTATE LLC.
Third-Party Plaintiff,
V.

JOHN F{UEBNFR
Third-party Defendant.

DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH. U.S.D.J.:
This matter comes before the Court upon the motion of Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff
Century 21 Real Estate LLC and Defendant Title Resource Group Affiliates Holdings LLC to
transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida under 28
USC.

1404(a). (Jun. 6. 2013. ECF No. 14-1) Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 78. no oral aftiumem

was heard, After carefully considering the submissions of the parties and based upon the
lolIo\\Ing

it

is the finding of this Couit that the Deindants motion is

gi

antcd

L

BACKGROUND
Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Century 21 Real Estate LLC (Centurv 21 “). entered into

a franchise agreement with Third-Party Defendant John Huebner C’Huebner”) on August 1, 1 999
flr the operation of a Century 21 real estate brokerage oftice in Orlando. Florida. (Defs Mem. 5.
Jun. 6, 2013, ECF No. 14-1). 1-luebner acquired four additional Century 21 franchises, all of
which are in Florida, and became the sole owner of

st
1

Orlando Real Estate Services, Inc.,

t
1
(

Orlando”) a real estate brokerage operating as “Century 21 Real Estate Professionals.” (j4) On
January 25, 2006, Defendant Title Resource Group Affiliates Holding LLC (“TRG”) entered into
an agreement with 1 st Orlando to operate First Place Title. LLC. which offered title and
settlement service related to residential real estate sales in the Orlando area, (Id. 7).
On March 21, 2012, Huebner was arrested in Osceola County, Florida in a child sex sting
conducted by the Osceola County Sheriff’s Office and was charged with the following crimes:
(1) Travel to Meet a Minor for Sex; (2) Unlawful Use of a Two-Way Communications Device;
(3) Lewd or Lascivious Battery (Attempted); and (4) Use of a Computer to Solicit Child to
Commit Sex, (Id. 5-6). Huebner sent sexually explicit messages online and via text message to
“Sherry Porter”. who was in reality I)etective Anna Owens of the Osceola County Sheriffs
0111cc. After Huebner was arrested, the story was published in the local press. with some
containing mug shots.

(, 7).

Subsequently, Century 2 1 terminated the agreement between Huebner and Century 2 1 for
harm to the goodwill of the Century 21 system. (Id.) On March 29, 2012, TRG exercised its right
to withdraw from their agreement. (Id.) Huebner, on behalf of

Orlando, filed suit against

Century 21 alleging improper termination of contract. (Id. 8.) Huebner and l Orlando also tiled
suit against TRG foi impiopei teimination of then rcspctivc agrcmnt

()

H.

APPLICABLE LAW

28 U.S.C.A.

§

1404(a) states that ‘For the convenience of parties and witnesses. in the

interest ofjustice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division
where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have
consented, The moving party bears the burden and “must present sufficient information on the
record to meet this burden of persuasion and to facilitate the courts analysis:

gtEjp,jiic.

v. Ri. Reynolds Tobacco Co.. 102 F. Supp. 2d 518. 529 (DJJ.J. 2000).

The Court must engage in a two part analysis to determine whether a motion to transfer
venue should be granted: (I) “whether the transferee district has proper jurisdiction and venue.
such that the case could have been brought in the transferee district in the first instance.” and: (2)
on ‘an individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness regarding which
forum is most appropriate to consider the case.” Travelodge Hotels, Inc. v. Perry Developers.
Inc., No. 11-1464, 2011 WL 5869602, *5 (D.N.J. 2011). The second part of the analysis rests on
a variety of guiding private and public factors the Court may consider. The private factors have
included: (I) plaintiffs forum preference as manifested in the original choice: (2) the defendants
preference: (3) whether the claim arose elsewhere; (4) the convenience ol the parties as indicated
by their relative physical and financial condition; (5) the convenience of the witnesses: and (6)
the location of books and records. Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir.
1995). The public interests have included: (1) the enforceability of the judgment: (2) practical
considerations that could make the trial easy. expeditious, or inexpensive: (3) the relative
administrative difficulty in the two fora resulting from court congestion; (4) the local interest in
deciding local controversies at home; (5) the public policies of the fora; and (6) the familiarity ol
the trial judge with the applicable state law in diversity cases.

( at 880).

While these factors

provide a guideline, the Court should look at all relevant factor and the totality of the case at
hand. (i at 779).
HI.

DISCUSSION
The first prong of the analysis is satisfied as the case could have been brought in the

Middle District of Florida, which has both jurisdiction and venue. The parties have conducted
business in the Middle District of Florida and the events that gave rise to the action occurred in
the Middle District of Florida. Furthermore, the parties have consented to jurisdiction and venue
in the Middle District of Florida. (Defs Mem. 10.)
A.

Private Factors

The second prong of the analysis requires a case by case study of the facts. The first
factor, Plaintiffs choice of forum, is usually weighed in the favor of the plaintiff, but when the
plaintiff choses a forum other than his home forum, deference is curbed.” Tischiov. l3ontex,
,

16 F. Supp. 2d 511, 521 (D.N.J. 1998). Huebner and 1 Orlando have conducted no

business in New Jersey and are located in Florida. Naturally, the second factor, defendant’s
preference, is the Middle District of Florida.
The third private factor examined by the Court is where the operative facts of the claim
arose. In the present case, the critical event that led to the termination of the franchise agreement
was Huebner’s arrest which took place in Osceola County, Florida. Nothing related to the
aforementioned incident took place in New Jersey.
The fourth private factor is the convenience of the forum for both pa ties. Here, since an
the parties are located in Florida, the Middle District of Florida would nati. rally be more
convenient. Similarly, the fifth factor weighs the convenience of the forum for witnesses. The
law enforcement officers with knowledge of the incident are located in Florida, along with

witnesses in the real estate community that could testify to the extent that Huehner’s actions have
damaged the goodwill in the community. Also, the testimony of’ Florida witnesses could not he
subpoenaed or compelled to testify by this Court. (DePs Mem. 13-16.)
The sixth private factor is the location of the records. While the criminal records are
located in Florida, this is a minimal inconvenience that does not weigh in favor of either side.
B.

Public Factors

The most pressing public factor in this case is the practical considerations that could
make the trial less expensive. As stated, all the parties to the case are located in Florida, as well
as the potential witness who will be vital to determining the issue at hand. If witnesses were
required to appear in New Jersey to testify, they would be subject to extra expenses and
unnecessary travel time. This factor weighs heavily in the favor of a change of venue. The
remaining public factors listed above are neutral and do not bare much consideration for this
case.
Considering the totality of both the private and public factors. which weigh heavily in
favor of Century 21, the motion to transfers should be granted.
IV.

CoNcLusioN

For the reasons stated above, Century 21’s Motion to Transfer venue is granted. An
appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.

Orig:
CC:

Hon. Joseph A. Dickson. U.S.M.J.
All Counsel of Record
File