Tomoiage et al v. Matute et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM Opinion Signed by the Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan on 3/12/2014.(ym, ) [Transferred from Illinois Northern on 3/13/2014.]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
MATEI TOMOIAGE, et al.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
v.
NEWTON XPRESS, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 14 C 333

MEMORANDUM OPINION
SAMUEL DER-YEGHIAYAN, District Judge
This matter is before the court on Defendants’ motion to transfer. For the
reasons stated below, the motion to transfer is granted.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs allege that on November 3, 2013, Defendant Javier Matute (Matute)
was working for Defendant Newton XPress, LLC (Xpress) and Defendant Martin
Transportation Systems, Inc. (Martin) as truck driver. Matute allegedly acted in a
negligent manner and caused a traffic accident (Accident) on a highway near
Watson, Illinois. In the Accident, Matei Tomoiage, Jr. and Dyana Tomoiage were
killed. Plaintiffs brought the instant action and include in the complaint negligence
claims, wrongful death claims, and survival action claims brought against Matute,

1

Xpress, and Martin. Defendants move to transfer the instant action to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

LEGAL STANDARD
A district court may transfer an action to another district where the action
might have been brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (Section 1404(a)) “[f]or
the convenience of parties and witnesses,” and if it is “in the interest of justice . . . .”
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In order to transfer a case, the transferor court must first find
that: (1) venue is proper in the transferor district, see Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works,
796 F.2d 217, 219 (7th Cir. 1986)(stating that a court “in which a suit is filed with
proper venue” may transfer an action pursuant to § 1404(a)), and (2) venue is proper
in the transferee district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)(stating that transfer can only be
made to a district in which the action “might have been brought”).

DISCUSSION
Defendants move to transfer the instant action to the Southern District of
Illinois. The parties have not disputed that the Northern District of Illinois and the
Southern District of Illinois are proper venues. (Mem. Trans. 2); (Ans. 1-5).

I. Plaintiffs’ Choice of Forum
Plaintiffs argue that their choice of forum is entitled to deference. In
considering whether to transfer an action, the court should “give some weight to the
2

plaintiff’s choice of forum.” Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Citizens Bank & Trust
Co. of Park Ridge, Ill., 592 F.2d 364, 368 (7th Cir. 1979); see also In re National
Presto Industries, Inc., 347 F.3d 662, 664 (7th Cir. 2003)(stating that “‘unless the
balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff’s choice of forum should
rarely be disturbed’”)(quoting in part Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508
(1947)). Plaintiffs argue that since they reside in the Chicago area, their choice of
forum should be given deference. While the court has given deference to Plaintiffs’
choice of the instant forum, Plaintiffs’ choice is not dispositive, particularly in a case
such as this where there are limited connections to the Northern District of Illinois,
and much more significant connections elsewhere.

II. Convenience of Parties and Witnesses
Defendants argue that the convenience of the parties and witnesses would be
best served by a transfer of the instant action to the Southern District of Illinois. The
record reflects that the responding police department, paramedics and accident reconstructionists are also located in the Southern District of Illinois. As to Matute,
Plaintiffs contend that he lives in Connecticut and thus he will need to travel to
Illinois and there has been no showing that it would be a severe inconvenience for
him to travel to the Southern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs have not specifically
identified any medical providers or other witnesses that are present in the Northern
District of Illinois. The Southern District of Illinois is relatively close in proximity to
the Chicago area, where Plaintiffs reside and they have not pointed to any
3

exceptional circumstances that would show that traveling to the Southern District of
Illinois would be overly burdensome. Thus, the convenience of the parties and
witnesses would clearly be best served by a transfer of the instant action to the
Southern District of Illinois.

III. Interest of Justice
Defendants contend that the interest of justice would be promoted by a transfer
to the Southern District of Illinois. In addressing the interest of justice factor, a court
may consider: (1) whether a transfer promotes the “efficient administration of the
court system,” (2) whether the action could be consolidated with other actions in the
transferee district, (3) whether the judges in the transferee district are more familiar
with the pertinent state law, (4) whether jurors in a particular district have a
“financial interest in [the] case,” and (5) which district would have jurors that could
“best apply community standards.” Coffey, 796 F.2d at 220-21, 221 n.4. The court
should also consider whether the transferee district has a lighter docket than the
transferor district. In re National Presto Indus., Inc., 347 F.3d at 664. In addressing
the interest of justice factor, the transferor court should focus on whether the
proposed transfer would promote the “efficient functioning of the courts.” Coffey,
796 F.2d at 221. The interest of justice factor does not involve a consideration of the
merits of the plaintiff’s claim. Id.
The record reflects that the accident scene is located in Effingham County,
which is in the Southern District of Illinois. The record also indicates that there are
4

extensive records and witnesses relevant to this case in that district. Defendants
have shown that this action could be handled more efficiently in the Southern District
of Illinois. This case has many close connections with the Southern District of
Illinois and limited connections with Northern District of Illinois. Thus, the interest
of justice factor clearly favors a transfer. Therefore, based on the above, the
Southern District of Illinois is clearly a more convenient forum and the motion to
transfer is granted.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing analysis, Defendants’ motion to transfer the instant
action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division is granted.

___________________________________
Samuel Der-Yeghiayan
United States District Court Judge
Dated: March 12, 2014

5