Prudential Insurance Co of America v. Morris et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM RULING denying 4 MOTION to Change Venue filed by Sherdyne Cornish. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark L Hornsby on 11/30/2011. (crt,Alexander, E)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION

PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO.
OF AMERICA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-cv-1631

VERSUS

JUDGE STAGG

COLUMBUS MORRIS, ET AL

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY

MEMORANDUM RULING
The Prudential Insurance Company of America (“Prudential”) commenced this civil
action by filing a complaint pursuant to the statutory interpleader provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
1335. Prudential represents that it issued a life insurance policy on Cleophus Morris. The
insured died in Louisiana earlier this year. Prudential represents that the last change of
beneficiary form submitted by the insured named Columbus Morris (brother; Louisiana),
Elmore Morris (brother; Louisiana), and DemetEria Wideman (daughter; Georgia). The
insured’s former wife, Sherdyne Cornish (Colorado), asked Prudential to pay $50,000 of the
proceeds to her pursuant to a property settlement agreement.
Prudential’s interpleader complaint invokes Section 1335, which is available because
the amount in controversy exceeds $500 and there is diversity of citizenship between two or
more of the claimants. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1397 because
at least one of the claimants resides in this district.
Sherdyne Cornish has filed a Motion to Change Venue (Doc. 4) to a federal court in
Denver, Colorado, where she resides. Ms. Cornish does not contend that this court is an

improper venue, so her request would fall under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The statute allows a
court, for “the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice,” to transfer
a civil action to any other district where it might have been brought. Ms. Cornish asserts that
a transfer to Denver will make it more convenient and cost effective for her to address the
complaint. She also asserts that the purchase of the policy and the divorce that lead to the
property settlement occurred in Denver.

She attaches documentation that shows she

presented her claim for benefits to the Colorado Commissioner of Insurance, who asked
Prudential to respond.
A transfer to Denver might make the litigation more convenient for Ms. Cornish, but
it would simply shift the inconvenience to the two claimants who reside in Louisiana, and
it could increase inconvenience for the further-east Georgia claimant. There is no reasonable
basis to determine that the purchase of the policy in 1985 or the couple’s divorce in Denver
make Denver, today, a more convenient location for this litigation. There is no perfect
venue, as far as convenience, when the claimants reside in three different states. The court
finds that the best exercise of its discretion is to deny the Motion for Change of Venue,
especially considering that two of the four claimants reside in this district. Ms. Cornish will
be able to file documents with the Clerk of Court by mail, and the court ordinarily allows outof-town litigants to participate by telephone for routine conferences. It appears the case will
be based largely on documents and legal arguments, so it is a good candidate for resolution
by motion practice. Thus, any inconvenience to Ms. Cornish of litigating a Louisiana case

Page 2 of 3

may be substantially less than she fears. Accordingly, the Motion for Change of Venue
(Doc. 4) is denied.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Shreveport, Louisiana, this 30th day of November,
2011.

Page 3 of 3