USA et al v. Wilder
Filing
12
OPINION by U.S. Magistrate Judge Byron Cudmore: Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) 9 DENIED. See written order. (LB, ilcd)
E-FILED
Thursday, 28 June, 2012 01:34:25 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
ex rel. DISMISSED RELATOR, and
THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ex rel.
DISMISSED RELATOR,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TROY K. WILDER, also known as
TROY WILDER d/b/a WILDERS
TRANSPORTATION,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 11-cv-3286
OPINION
BYRON G. CUDMORE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Troy K. Wilder,
a/k/a Troy Wilder, d/b/a Wilders Transportation’s (Wilder), Motion to
Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) (d/e 9) (Motion). Wilder
asks the Court to transfer the venue of this case for the convenience of the
parties to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division. For the reasons set forth below, the Court determines in
the exercise of its discretion that a transfer of venue is not appropriate in
this case. The Motion is therefore DENIED.
Page 1 of 5
BACKGROUND
The Plaintiffs United States and the State of Illinois allege that
Defendant Wilder defrauded the Illinois Medicaid system by submitting
false claims for medical transportation services for indigent persons
covered by Medicaid. The Plaintiffs bring claims under the Federal False
Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a); the Illinois False Claims Act, 740 ILCS
175/1; and common law theories of unjust enrichment and payment under
mistake of fact. Amended Complaint (d/e 2), Counts I, II, III, and IV.
Wilder states in the Motion that he lives and operates his business in
the Northern District of Illinois, in the Chicago, Illinois, area. Wilder states
that witnesses that he would call at trial all live in the Northern District. In
particular, Wilder states that he and his wife Lenora Wilder would testify at
trial. Wilder further states that he and his wife care for their son who
suffers from schizophrenia. Wilder states that a trial in this District would
impose a significant burden on them because their son requires daily
supervision by at least one of them. Motion, at 3-6.
The Plaintiff United States responds that its witnesses who would
testify regarding the processing and payment of claims live in this District
because the Illinois Medicaid program is operated in Springfield, Illinois.
United States’ Response to Defendant’s Motion for Change of Venue
(d/e 11), at 3-4.
Page 2 of 5
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Section 1404(a) authorizes the Court to transfer venue for the
convenience of the parties and witnesses, as well as the interests of
justice, to another District where venue is proper. Heller Financial, Inc. v.
Midwhey Powder Co., Inc., 883 F.2d 1286, 1293 (7th Cir. 1989). In
determining the convenience of each proposed forum, the Court should
consider: (1) the plaintiff's choice of forum; (2) the location of material
events; (3) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (4) the
convenience of the witnesses; and (5) the convenience of the parties.
Bryant v. ITT Corp., 48 F. Supp.2d 829, 832 (N. D. Ill. 1999). Substantial
deference must be given to a plaintiff's chosen forum. Heller Financial, 883
F.2d at 1293. In considering the interests of justice, the Court must
consider whether the Northern District can handle the case more efficiently.
Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217, 219-20 (7th Cir. 1986).
Wilder has the burden to prove that the Northern District is clearly more
convenient. Id.
ANALYSIS
Wilder fails to meet his burden to prove that the Northern District is
clearly more convenient. He states that the Northern District is more
convenient for himself and his witnesses, but makes no showing that the
Northern District is more convenient for the Plaintiffs or their witnesses.
Page 3 of 5
Shifting inconvenience from one party to another is not sufficient basis to
warrant transfer. Countryman on Behalf of Upstate New York Pension and
Retirement Fund v. Stein, Roe & Farnham, 681 F.Supp. 479 (N.D. Ill.
1987). Similarly, Wilder argues that the events occurred in the Northern
District because he operated his business in the Northern District. The
material events, however, also included the processing of allegedly false
claims. Those events occurred in Springfield, Illinois, in this District. Thus,
these considerations fail to show that the Northern District is clearly more
convenient.
Wilder finally argues that the burden on his family should tip the
balance in favor of the Northern District. He and his wife, Lenora Wilder,
will both be witnesses, but one of them must be at home every day to care
for their mentally ill son. This family obligation is significant, but the effect
on that obligation by maintaining venue in this District is not that great.
This is a civil matter, and Wilder is represented by counsel. Neither Wilder
nor his wife must come to the Central District unless and until the matter
goes to trial. His counsel can appear on Wilder’s behalf at all matters
before trial. Furthermore, Lenora Wilder is not a party. Wilder states that
she will be a witness, but she will not need to come to the District because
she can testify by deposition. See General Portland Cement Co. v. Perry,
204 F.2d 316, 319-20 (7th Cir. 1953) (defense motion to transfer venue
Page 4 of 5
denied, in part, because defendant failed “to show why depositions of these
witnesses could not be used successfully.”). She can thereby stay with
their son during any trial. Given the availability of testimony by deposition,
Wilder fails to show that the Northern District is clearly more convenient.
The interests of justice also weighs in favor of keeping the case in
this District. This is one of twelve related false claims cases pending in this
District. These cases were originally brought in a single qui tam action.
United States ex rel. Relator v. Wilder et al., Case No. 06-3265. The
relator was dismissed from that action, and the Plaintiffs severed the twelve
matters into separate cases. Case No. 06-3265, Opinion entered April 15,
2011 (d/e 56); and Minute Entry entered July 27, 2011 (d/e 63). The
cases, however, are related and judicial economy will be promoted by
keeping all of them in one District.
WHEREFORE Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1404(a) (d/e 9) is DENIED.
ENTER:
June 28, 2012
s/ Byron G. Cudmore
BYRON G. CUDMORE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 5 of 5
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?