Reichwaldt v. General Motors LLC
Filing
45
ORDER denying 6 Motion to Transfer Case. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 3/27/2017. (ss)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
KAITLYN REICHWALDT,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION FILE
NO. 1:16-CV-2171-TWT
GENERAL MOTORS LLC,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This is a products liability action. It is before the Court on the Defendant’s
Motion to Transfer Case to the District of Nebraska [Doc. 6].
I. Background
The case arises out of an accident that occurred on January 27, 2015, in
Lincoln, Nebraska. A young man named Justin Woodson lost control of the 1984 CK
pickup truck he was driving, which then crossed a low grass median in front of Ms.
Reichwaldt’s Ford Taurus. Ms. Reichwaldt’s car struck the CK pickup truck near the
passenger side gas tank. The tank ruptured, there was an explosion, and Ms.
Reichwaldt was seriously burned. Fortunately, the Plaintiff was pulled from her
burning car by a bystander and two police officers. There is a closed circuit videotape
T:\ORDERS\16\Reichwaldt\transfer.wpd
which shows the aftermath of the collision and the burning vehicles. Mr. Woodson has
admitted he caused the wreck, pleaded guilty to reckless driving and served jail time.
Moreover, because a police officer was driving next to Ms. Reichwaldt at the time of
the wreck, there is dash cam footage showing the events leading right up to the
moment of impact.
After Ms. Reichwaldt was released from the hospital and completed her
treatment, she moved to Suwanee, Georgia, where she currently resides with her
parents. She has no plans to return to Nebraska. Both the CK pickup truck and Ms.
Reichwaldt’s Ford Taurus – which are the “key” pieces of physical evidence in this
case – are stored in Villa Rica, Georgia. The key damages witnesses live in Georgia
– Kaitlyn Reichwaldt and her parents. The key scene witnesses – those who were at
the scene at the time of the wreck – have signed sworn affidavits expressing their
willingness to travel to Atlanta for the trial of this matter in order to testify live if
asked to do so.
The Plaintiff alleges that GM has known since the early 1970s when it designed
and first started selling its CK pickup trucks that American citizens would burn and
die in those trucks when they were struck on the side in foreseeable wrecks. That is
because the gas tank was located in a known “crush zone” on the side of the truck
outside the frame rails with no protection from side impact. GM manufactured and
T:\ORDERS\16\Reichwaldt\transfer.wpd
-2-
sold the CK trucks with side-mounted gas tanks from 1972 through 1988 (1973-1987
model years). GM has been sued hundreds of times as a result of deaths and injuries
due to fire in CK trucks, all over the country, including at least 20 times in this state.
This is a design defect case, in which punitive damages are sought. The liability
issues are whether the design of the CK truck is defective, and whether GM’s conduct
in selling the CK trucks and failing to warn of the known danger is reckless or wanton
and warrants the imposition of punitive damages. The key witnesses with knowledge
of those issues are current and former GM employees, most of whom still live in
Michigan. All or at least most of the relevant GM documents have been, and
presumably still are, maintained by either the King & Spalding firm in Atlanta or by
the Swift Currie firm. In past CK truck cases, the relevant GM documents have been
produced in Atlanta. None of the key documents are located in Nebraska.
The Plaintiff’s lead counsel has been involved in 15 past CK truck cases. GM
has in the past hired lawyers and experts from all over the country to defend GM’s gas
tank design. The Plaintiff asserts without contradiction that GM has never retained an
expert witness from Nebraska for a CK truck case. GM is not represented by any
Nebraska lawyers. The last CK truck case the Plaintiff’s counsel handled was
defended by the Swift Currie firm of Atlanta. In this case, GM is defended by the
same Atlanta firm and by Dykema Gossett of Detroit.
T:\ORDERS\16\Reichwaldt\transfer.wpd
-3-
This case will be litigated mainly in Georgia, where the Plaintiff and her family
live and have chosen to file suit, and in Michigan, where GM and its witnesses are
located. The Nebraska connection is, because of the nature of this lawsuit and the
issues, insubstantial. The Nebraska connection is eclipsed by the litigation that will
take place in other states, where GM’s experts reside and must be deposed or where
former GM employees now reside and must be deposed. In another case currently
being handled by the Plaintiff’s counsel against GM, GM hired experts in Utah,
California, Texas, and Arizona for a wreck that occurred in Atlanta, Georgia.
II. Discussion
The Court must give the Plaintiff’s chosen forum a substantial degree of
deference.1 However, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides that “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.” As the
party seeking to move this case away from the Plaintiff’s home district, GM has the
burden of demonstrating good reasons for changing venue and must prove that the
inconvenience to GM if the case is not transferred sufficiently outweighs the burden
1
Robinson v. Giarmarco & Bill, P.C., 74 F.3d 253, 260 (11th Cir. 1996)
(“[T]he plaintiff's choice of forum should not be disturbed unless it is clearly
outweighed by other considerations.”).
T:\ORDERS\16\Reichwaldt\transfer.wpd
-4-
which the transfer would impose on Ms. Reichwaldt.2 A court may only disregard a
plaintiff’s choice of forum if it concludes that “for the convenience of parties and
witnesses” the “interests of justice” require transfer. Courts in the Eleventh Circuit
consider a variety of factors in determining whether a transfer is in the interests of
justice, including: the convenience of the witnesses and parties, the relative means of
the parties, the location of relevant documents and the relative ease of access to
sources of proof, the locus of operative facts, the availability of compulsory process
for witnesses, a forum’s familiarity with the governing law, and trial efficiency and
the interests of justice.3
GM has not met its burden of proving that any alleged inconvenience to GM
caused by litigating in this district “outweighs” the inconvenience to the Plaintiff if
this case is moved away from her home district. There is no burden or
“inconvenience” on GM to litigate this case in this district. In fact, it is clearly far
more convenient for GM to litigate in this district than in Nebraska. GM’s lead
counsel is in Detroit; its key witnesses are in Michigan. GM’s lead counsel (from
Detroit) and GM witnesses will have to travel to hearings and to trial regardless of
whether this case is in Nebraska or Georgia. Atlanta is closer to Detroit than is
2
Goldstein v. Kellwood Co., 933 F. Supp. 1082, 1086 (N.D. Ga. 1996).
3
Manuel v. Convergys Corp., 430 F. 3d 1132, 1135 n.1 (11th Cir. 2005).
T:\ORDERS\16\Reichwaldt\transfer.wpd
-5-
Lincoln, Nebraska. Atlanta also has a much larger airport, with more airlines, with
frequent and direct flights between Detroit and Atlanta.
Most of the crucial evidence in this case is not located in Nebraska. The
Plaintiff and the wrecked vehicles are here in Georgia. The documents relevant to
GM’s design decisions and its failure to warn of the dangers of the CK pickup truck
have in the past been located in Georgia and are indisputably located in Michigan. The
“key witnesses” – GM employees and the parties’ experts – are scattered across the
country. The only “evidence” in Nebraska consists of scene witnesses and treating
physicians. Out of the three states with connections to this case, Nebraska’s
connections are the weakest.
The role of eyewitness testimony regarding this wreck is greatly diminished by
three facts. First, there are videos showing the accident sequence and immediately
following the crash. The video of the aftermath of the wreck shows the police officers
and Mr. Songer removing Ms. Reichwaldt from her burning car. There is no reason
why additional testimony from police or first responders cannot effectively be
presented through video depositions. Second, Woodson has admitted fault and pleaded
guilty to causing the wreck. Third, Woodson and Songer, the scene witnesses with the
most direct involvement with the wreck, have agreed to come to trial if asked to do so.
Given the issues in the case, it is highly unlikely that GM would call any of these
T:\ORDERS\16\Reichwaldt\transfer.wpd
-6-
witnesses. Damage witnesses such as treating physicians are not “key” witnesses for
purpose of the transfer analysis because their testimony is usually taken by videotaped
depositions.
The relative means of the parties favor leaving the case here. All the documents
relevant to the primary issues in this case – defect and punitive damages – are either
in Georgia or Michigan. The only possibly relevant documents in Nebraska relate to
the wreck and Ms. Reichwaldt’s post-injury care. Those documents are available to
the parties. GM fails to articulate any reason why a “site visit” would be relevant,
necessary, or even remotely helpful in this case, particularly given the videos of the
wreck and the accident reconstruction GM will likely have done. The defective 1984
GM CK pickup truck that injured the Plaintiff was not designed or manufactured in
Nebraska – it was designed in Michigan and built in Wisconsin. None of the conduct
of GM at issue occurred in Nebraska. This Court is capable of applying whatever law
applies to any case pending in the Court. Nebraska has no current interest in having
the case tried in its courts. Georgia has a strong interest in protecting its citizens from
dangerous products and allowing one of its citizens to recover for the injuries she
suffered, regardless of where those injuries were suffered.
T:\ORDERS\16\Reichwaldt\transfer.wpd
-7-
III. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Case to the
District of Nebraska [Doc. 6] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 27 day of March, 2017.
/s/Thomas W. Thrash
THOMAS W. THRASH, JR.
United States District Judge
T:\ORDERS\16\Reichwaldt\transfer.wpd
-8-
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?