Kastelik et al v. Tanger Management, LLC

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher on 8/29/2024. (bw5s, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

NATALIA R. KASTELIK,
Plaintiff,
v.
TANGER MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Defendant.
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Civil Case No. SAG-24-1474

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this tort action, this Court has considered the motion filed by Defendant Tanger
Management, LLC (“Tanger”) to dismiss for forum non conveniens or, in the alternative, to
transfer venue. ECF 12. Plaintiffs Natalia R. Kastelik and Francis Ciociola opposed the motion,
ECF 13, and Tanger filed a reply, ECF 14. No hearing is necessary. See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md.
2023). For the reasons that follow, the Motion will be denied without prejudice.
I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The facts below are derived from the Complaint and are taken in the light most favorable

to Plaintiffs, the non-moving party. Kastelik, who is a Maryland resident, shopped at a Tanger
Outlets facility in Fort Worth, Texas on August 15, 2022. ECF 1 ¶ 4. While walking to her car,
she tripped on a steel plate with a piece of “angle iron” that was protruding upward, which caused
her to fall and fracture her left wrist. Id. She received emergency treatment at the Texas Health
Harris Methodist Hospital. Id. Tanger subsequently attempted a temporary repair of the area where
Kastelik fell. Id. ¶ 5. Kastelik sustained damages including medical expenses, loss of wages, and
pain and suffering. Id. ¶ 6. Kastelik and her husband, Ciociola, also suffered a loss of consortium.
Id. ¶¶ 13, 14.
1

II.

ANALYSIS
A. Forum Non Conveniens
Tanger argues that the case should be dismissed for forum non conveniens “based on the

finding that, when weighed against plaintiff’s choice of forum, the relevant public and private
interests strongly favor a specific, adequate, and available alternative forum.” Kontoulas v. A.H.
Robins Co., 745 F.2d 312, 315 (4th Cir. 1984). This Court agrees, and the parties do not seem to
contest, that the Northern District of Texas would be both adequate and available. The question is
simply whether this Court can find that “the relevant public and private interests” strongly favor
that forum, given the Plaintiffs’ choice of forum here.
On the present record, this Court cannot make that finding. The private interests appear, at
this early stage, relatively evenly divided. There are relevant witnesses (namely the Plaintiffs) and
evidence (such as medical records) here in Maryland, and relevant witnesses (not yet named) and
physical evidence in Texas. Other factors to be considered are those pertaining to the public
interest, described by the Supreme Court as:
Administrative difficulties follow for courts when litigation is piled up in congested
centers instead of being handled at its origin. Jury duty is a burden that ought not
to be imposed upon the people of a community which has no relation to the
litigation. In cases which touch the affairs of many persons, there is reason for
holding the trial in their view and reach rather than in remote parts of the country
where they can learn of it by report only. There is a local interest in having localized
controversies decided at home. There is an appropriateness, too, in having the trial
of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the state law that must govern the
case, rather than having a court in some other forum untangle problems in conflict
of laws, and in law foreign to itself.
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501,508–09 (1947). While some of those factors weigh in favor
of Texas here, this Court cannot say that those factors “strongly favor” that forum in light of the
Plaintiffs’ selection of Maryland and the other factors weighing in its favor. In sum, this Court is

2

of the view that the correct lens for choosing the most appropriate forum will be the statutory
considerations addressed below.
B. Motion to Transfer
Alternatively, Tanger argues that transfer of venue is warranted under 28 U.S.C. § 1404.
That statute provides, “[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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
“District courts within this circuit consider four factors when deciding whether to transfer venue:
(1) the weight accorded to plaintiff’s choice of venue; (2) witness convenience and access; (3)
convenience of the parties; and (4) the interest of justice.” Trustees of the Plumbers and Pipefitters
Nat. Pension Fund v. Plumbing Servs., Inc., 791 F.3d 436, 444 (4th Cir. 2015). “As a general rule,
a plaintiff’s ‘choice of venue is entitled to substantial weight in determining whether transfer is
appropriate.’” Id. (quoting Bd. of Trs. v. Sullivant Ave. Props., LLC, 508 F. Supp. 2d 473, 477
(E.D. Va. 2007)). Given that substantial weight afforded to Plaintiffs’ choice of forum, Tanger
would have to make a compelling showing as to the remaining factors to justify a transfer. Tanger
essentially cites three reasons: the location of physical evidence including the accident site, the
applicability of Texas law, and the location of potential witnesses. ECF 12-1 at 8–9. At this early
stage, however, Tanger has not provided sufficient information for this Court to make adequate
findings about witness convenience and access or the interest of justice, other than the general
local interest in having localized disputes decided at home and the Texas court’s greater familiarity
with Texas law. It is unclear at present who the witnesses will be and where they live, and what
the evidence will look like. For example, is the condition that allegedly caused the fall still present,
such that site visits may be helpful or required, or have the conditions changed? Will treating

3

physicians be necessary witnesses, or will the damage issues be largely stipulated? How many
employees of the Fort Worth outlet (or other witnesses from the scene) will have relevant
testimony? These issues can be explored in discovery, which will not look meaningfully different
whether this case is pending in Maryland or Texas. And this Court notes that a motion for transfer
of venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 “may be made at any time.” See Lencco Racing Co., Inc. v.
Arctco, Inc., 953 F. Supp. 69, 70 n.1 (W.D.N.Y. 1997); see also Ademiluyi v. Nat'l Bar Ass'n, Civ.
No. GJH-15-02947, 2016 WL 4705536, at *4 (D. Md. Sept. 8, 2016) (“Indeed, ‘nothing bars a
court from granting a motion to transfer venue at a later stage in the case.’”) (quoting Jones v.
Walgreen Co., 463 F. Supp. 2d 267, 271 (D. Conn. 2006)). This Court therefore denies the motion
to transfer venue without prejudice to Tanger re-raising the issue at a later stage of the case, when
more information is available about the relevant evidence and the identities and locations of the
witnesses who will have to testify at court proceedings or in discovery.
III.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Tanger’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, Motion

to Transfer, ECF 12, will be DENIED without prejudice. A separate Order follows.

Dated: August 29, 2024

/s/
Stephanie A. Gallagher
United States District Judge

4