Miller v. Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company
Filing
33
ORDER AND REASONS GRANTING 9 MOTION to Transfer Case . Signed by Judge Jane Triche Milazzo on 2/29/2016.(my)
.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONA SHEA MILLER
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO: 15-4660
ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN
RAILROAD COMPANY
SECTION: “H”(4)
ORDER AND REASONS
At oral argument on Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue (Doc. 9),
the Court granted the Motion and ordered that the case be transferred to the
Southern District of Mississippi. These reasons follow.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brings this case under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act
(“FELA”) as the administratix of the estate of her deceased son Gregory
Tramaine Miller. Mr. Miller was killed on August 12, 2015, when he was
caught between two railcars that were being coupled together at a facility in
Petal, Mississippi. Defendant Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company
(“AGS”) was Plaintiff’s employer at the time of the incident, and the parties
do not dispute that he was engaged in his employment with AGS at the time
of his death.
Defendant filed the instant motion requesting that the case be
transferred to the Southern District of Mississippi, Eastern Division, as this
is where the accident occurred, where Mr. Miller resided and worked, where
Plaintiff resides, and where the majority of potential fact witnesses are
located. Plaintiff opposes this Motion.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
I. Applicable Law
Defendants argue that this Court should transfer this action pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §1404, which provides that “[f]or 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.” As a threshold
matter, it must be established that the transferee venue is one where the suit
could have been brought. Once that is established, the Fifth Circuit has held
that courts should apply the public and private interest forum non conveniens
factors enunciated in by the Supreme Court in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert in
determining whether good cause for venue transfer exists pursuant to § 1404
(a).
The private interest factors include: “(1) the relative ease of access to
sources of proof; (2) the availability of compulsory process to secure the
2
attendance of witnesses; (3) the cost of attendance for willing witnesses; and
(4) all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and
inexpensive.”1
The public interest factors include: “(1) the administrative
difficulties flowing from court congestion; (2) the local interest in having
localized interests decided at home; (3) the familiarity of the forum with the
law that will govern the case; and (4) the avoidance of unnecessary problems
of conflict of laws [or in] the application of foreign law.”2 Because the remedy
under §1404 is transfer rather than dismissal, plaintiff’s choice of forum
should be given less weight in a §1404 case than in a forum non conveniens
case where the remedy is dismissal.3
Moreover, where a plaintiff has not
brought suit in his home forum and the cause of action did not occur in the
forum, his choice of forum is given less weight.4
Plaintiff argues that a more stringent standard should apply in FELA
cases. She bases this argument on language in Boyd v. Grand Trunk W. R.R.
Co. stating that the plaintiff’s ability to select the forum under FELA is a
“substantial right.”5 District courts throughout this circuit have, however,
concluded that analysis under the Gilbert factors is appropriate in a FELA
case.6 Indeed, a section of this district recently transferred a FELA case
In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008)
Id.
3 Id.
4 Piper Aircraft Co., 454 U.S. 235, 255 (1981).
5 338 U.S. 263, 266 (1949).
6 See, e.g., York v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., No. 07-cv-169, 2008 WL 5069835, at *2
(E.D. Tex. Feb. 13, 2008); Nagra v. Nation R.R. Passenger Corp., No. 10-1612, 2010 WL
1
2
3
under a similar factual scenario based on this standard.7
Plaintiff’s
argument relies primarily on two unreported cases out of the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.8 These cases are not persuasive as they turn on distinct
facts. Accordingly this Court will follow the line of cases originating in this
circuit and apply the Gilbert factors.
II. Application of the Factors
The parties do not dispute that the case could have been brought in the
Southern District of Mississippi. Accordingly, the Court may proceed directly
to an analysis of the relevant factors. As outlined below, the factors indicate
that transfer is appropriate.
A. Private interest factors
As previously noted, the private interest factors include “(1) the relative
ease of access to sources of proof; (2) the availability of compulsory process to
secure the attendance of witnesses; (3) the cost of attendance for willing
witnesses; and (4) all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy,
expeditious and inexpensive.”9 As to the first factor, access to sources of proof
would be much easier in the Southern District of Mississippi, as the incident
occurred just a few miles from the federal courthouse in Hattiesburg. With
regard to the second factor, compulsory process would be available for many,
3325640, at n. 1 (W.D. La. August 20, 2010); Tridle v. Union Pacific R. Co., No. 07-cv-213,
2008 WL 4724854, at *2 (E.D. Tex., Oct. 15, 2008).
7 Johnson v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 15-cv-3558, 2015 WL 7777983 (E.D.
La. Dec. 2, 2015).
8 Abbott v. CSX Transp., Inc., No. 07-2767, 2008 WL 4522481 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 8, 2008);
Askew v. CSX Trasp., Inc., No. 05-5915, 2008 WL 4347530 (E.D. Pa. 2008).
9 In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008)
4
if not all, of the witnesses in Mississippi, while it would be unavailable here.
Additionally, the cost of obtaining witness attendance in this district would
likely be higher. The fourth factor likewise indicates in favor of transfer, as
the Defendant correctly notes that all aspects of the accident, the parties, and
the witnesses are located in the Southern District of Mississippi and Plaintiff
can point to nothing to make trial in this District easier, more expeditious, or
less expensive.
B. Public Interest Factors
The public interest factors include “(1) the administrative difficulties
flowing from court congestion; (2) the local interest in having localized
interests decided at home; (3) the familiarity of the forum with the law that
will govern the case; and (4) the avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict
of laws [or in] the application of foreign law.”10
This Court has been
presented no evidence of court congestion on the docket of the Southern
District of Mississippi. Accordingly, this factor is neutral. The second factor
favors transfer of the case. Mississippi has a greater interest than Louisiana
in adjudicating this suit, which deals with an accident that took place within
its borders involving its citizens. Factor three is neutral, as FELA cases are
governed by federal law, giving both this court and the Southern District of
Mississippi sufficient familiarity with the applicable law. Factor four is not
relevant. Accordingly, the Court concludes that most of the relevant factors
10
Id.
5
indicate that the case should be transferred to the Southern District of
Mississippi.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Transfer (Doc. 9) is
GRANTED.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 29th day of February, 2016.
____________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
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?