Got Gold LLC v. Temple et al

Filing 17

ORDER entered by Magistrate Judge David G. Bernthal on 1/10/2013. Defendants' Motion to Transfer 10 is DENIED. See written order. (JMW, ilcd) Modified on 1/10/2013 to show the document as an opinion. (JMW, ilcd)

E-FILED

Thursday, 10 January, 2013 01:12:34 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Urbana Division

GOT GOLD? LLC,
a Florida limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
v.
SANDRA TEMPLE, BRADLEY ROSE,
and THE GOLD PEOPLE, a
Tennessee partnership,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 12-2278

ORDER
Plaintiff Got Gold, LLC, a business that purchases gold jewelry and other gold items by
organizing “gold parties” at homes around the country, brings claims for breach of fiduciary
duty, tortious interference with business expectancy, and conversion against Sandra Temple,
Bradley Rose, and The Gold People, alleging that Temple and Rose, while working for Plaintiff,
wrongfully used Plaintiff’s gold party network to create their own gold-buying business, The
Gold People, and diverted business from Plaintiff to themselves. Defendants, citizens of
Tennessee, have filed a Motion to Transfer (#10) this case to the Eastern District of Tennessee,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Plaintiff opposes (#15). For the reasons explained below,
Defendants’ Motion to Transfer (#10) is DENIED.

“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 or
to any district or division to which all parties have consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). District
courts enjoy broad discretion in weighing whether transfer would be convenient and in the
interest of justice. Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217, 219 (7th Cir. 1986). When
assessing convenience, courts generally look to “each party’s access to and distance from
resources in each forum,” “the location of material events,” “the availability of and access to
witnesses,”and “the relative ease of access to sources of proof.” See Research Automation, Inc.
v. Schrader-Bridgeport Int’l, Inc., 626 F.3d 973, 978 (7th Cir. 2010). As to the interests of
justice, courts consider “docket congestion and likely speed to trial in the transferor and potential

transferee forums; each court’s relative familiarity with the relevant law; the respective
desirability of resolving controversies in each locale; and the relationship of each community to
the controversy.” Id. (citations omitted). In weighing these factors, the Court is mindful that
“‘unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff’s choice of forum should
rarely be disturbed.’” In re Nat’l Presto Indus., Inc., 347 F.3d 662, 664 (7th Cir. 2003) (quoting
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947)). Stated differently, courts will resolve a tie
in favor of the plaintiff’s original choice of venue. Id. at 665.

Transfer is not appropriate here because the factors enumerated above either militate in
favor of the Central District of Illinois, or—at best for Defendants—are a wash. First, as to the
convenience of the parties, the Court notes that, although Plaintiff was a Florida citizen when the
Complaint was filed, Plaintiff now reports that its sole member is moving to the Chicago area,
and taking the Got Gold business with her. Thus, the Central District of Illinois is convenient for
Plaintiff, and the Court will not use § 1404(a) simply to shift inconvenience from Defendants to
Plaintiff. See Research Automation, 626 F.3d at 978 (“[M]erely shifting inconvenience from one
party to another is not a sufficient basis for transfer.”). Next, regarding the related factors of the
location of material events and the availability and location of witnesses, the parties dispute
where the material events giving rise to this case occurred and, accordingly, where the majority
of relevant witnesses to these events would be located. Defendants urge that Temple and Rose’s
dealings with Plaintiff occurred in Tennessee, and that the relevant witnesses to these dealings
are also located there. Plaintiff, in contrast, argues that, although Temple and Rose first became
involved in Plaintiff’s gold parties in Tennessee, Temple and Rose’s scheme to divert business
from Plaintiff occurred in Central Illinois, where they held a number of gold parties. Thus,
Plaintiff maintains that the relevant witnesses it needs to prove its allegations are located in
Central Illinois. Both parties present valid arguments, but the Court decides the tie in favor of
Plaintiff. See In re Nat’l Presto Indus., 347 F.3d at 665. Finally, although Defendants maintain
that access to documents and other sources of proof weighs in favor of transfer because The
Gold People’s records are located in Tennessee, Plaintiff correctly notes that technology
permitting electronic discovery diminishes the relevance of the location of documents. ESPN,
Inc. v. Quiksilver, Inc., 581 F. Supp. 2d 542, 548 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (“In an era of electronic
2

documents, easy copying and overnight shipping, this factor assumes much less importance than
it did formerly.”).

Furthermore, the interest of justice weighs against transfer. As data provided by Plaintiff
reflects, the civil docket in the Central District of Illinois is less congested than that of the
Eastern District of Tennessee. Each district might have an interest in deciding this case because
events giving rise to it appear to have occurred in both districts, but the Court resolves this tie in
Plaintiff’s favor. Finally, as to familiarity of the court with relevant law, Plaintiff’s claims are
brought under state law. The parties dispute whether Tennessee or Illinois law applies to
Plaintiff’s claims. The Court will not engage in a choice of law analysis at this early stage of the
case. Instead, it suffices to note that federal district courts are routinely called upon to apply the
laws of other states; whether applying Illinois or Tennessee law, the Court will be able to resolve
this case properly.

In sum, the convenience of the parties and the interest of justice weigh in favor of
keeping this case in the Central District of Illinois. Defendants’ Motion to Transfer (#10) is
DENIED.
ENTERED this 10th day of January, 2013.

s/DAVID G. BERNTHAL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3