Universal Settlements International, Inc. v. National Viatical, Inc. et al

Filing 197

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying relief requested in appeal 123 and 125 and affirming magistrate judge decision 115; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN S O U T H E R N DIVISION

U N IV E R S A L SETTLEMENTS INTERNATIONAL, INC., P l a in tif f , F ile No. 1:07-CV-1243 v. H O N . ROBERT HOLMES BELL N A T IO N A L VIATICAL, INC., JAMES T O R C H IA , and MARC A. CELELLO, D e f e n d a n ts . / M E M O R A N D U M OPINION AND ORDER D e f e n d a n ts National Viatical, Inc. ("NVI"), James Torchia ("Torchia") and Marc A. C e lello ("Celello") have appealed the Magistrate Judge's order denying their motions to tr a n s f e r venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). (Dkt. Nos. 123, 125, Appeals.) Defendants' N V I and Torchia's motion sought an order transferring this action to the United States D istric t Court for the Northern District of Georgia. (Dkt. No. 67.) Defendant Celello c o n c u rre d in the motion to transfer. (Dkt. No. 68.) The Magistrate Judge denied the motions fo r the reasons stated on the record on July 21, 2008. (Dkt. No. 115, 7/30/08 Order.) A magistrate judge's resolution of a nondispositive pretrial matter should be modified o r set aside on appeal only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); W.D. Mich. LCivr 72.3(a). The "clearly erroneous" s t a n d a rd applies only to the magistrate judge's findings of fact. Gandee v. Glaser, 785 F.

S u p p . 684, 686 (S.D. Ohio 1992). The magistrate judge's legal conclusions are reviewed u n d e r the "contrary to law" standard. Id. "`A finding is `clearly erroneous' when although th e re is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the d e f in ite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.'" Adams County Reg'l W a te r Dist. v. Vill. of Manchester, 226 F.3d 513, 517 (6th Cir. 2000) (quoting United States v . United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). The clearly erroneous standard d o e s not entitle a reviewing court to reverse the finding of the trier of fact simply because it w o u l d have weighed the evidence or decided the case differently. Anderson v. Bessemer C ity, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1983). "Rather, a reviewing court must ask whether, based on the e n tire evidence, it is `left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been c o m m itte d .'" Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242 (2001) (citing United States v. United S ta te s Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). T h e Magistrate Judge articulated two bases for denying the motion to transfer. First, s h e noted that a transfer would merely be a transfer of inconvenience. Second, she indicated th a t keeping the case in this district would promote the efficient administration of justice in lig h t of the Court's experience with the related Trade Partners receivership action, Quilling v . Trade Partners, Inc., 1:03 CV-236 (W.D. Mich.). (Dkt. No. 121, 7/21/08 Hr'g Tr. 32-33.) D efen d an ts contend that the Magistrate Judge's determination that granting the motion w o u ld merely transfer the inconvenience from Defendants to Plaintiff is clearly erroneous b e c au s e Plaintiff Universal Settlements International, Inc. ("USI"), is not a resident of

2

M ic h ig a n . Defendants contend that because USI is a Canadian corporation, and because the m a jo rity of the witnesses and documents are located in Georgia, a Georgia venue would be n o less convenient to USI than would a Michigan venue, and the Magistrate Judge's finding to the contrary was clearly erroneous. The Magistrate Judge's finding that a Georgia venue would be more inconvenient to U S I is not clearly erroneous. Admittedly, a foreign plaintiff's choice of forum deserves less d ef ere n ce than a resident plaintiff's choice because the assumption that the forum is more c o n v e n ie n t is less reasonable. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 255-56 (1981). N e v e rth e le ss , even though the assumption of convenience is less reasonable in the case of a foreign plaintiff, that does not mean that the court cannot find, based on the evidence before it, that the foreign plaintiff's choice of forum is more convenient to the foreign plaintiff. In th is case USI's chosen forum is closer to USI's business in Burlington, Ontario than is G e o rg ia . Accordingly, there is evidence from which the Magistrate Judge could find that M ic h ig a n is a more convenient forum for USI. In analyzing the relative convenience of the tw o jurisdictions, the Magistrate Judge also gave some weight to the fact that Defendants had b e e n willing to come to this jurisdiction in connection with the Trade Partners litigation when it was in their business interest. (Tr. at 33.) Because there was evidence to support her c o n c lu sio n , the Magistrate Judge's determination that a transfer to Georgia would merely s h if t the inconvenience from one party to another is not clearly erroneous.

3

D efen d an ts also contend that the Magistrate Judge's reliance on the Court's familiarity w ith the Trade Partners Receivership is clearly erroneous. Defendants contend that because a jury will determine factual disputes at trial, the Court's knowledge of the Trade Partners litig a tio n is irrelevant to issues of judicial economy. Defendants' argument is not persuasive. There is no dispute that this action relates to property involved in the Trade Partner's litigation. (Dkt. No. 4, Related Case Finding.) T h e Court's familiarity with the Trade Partners litigation has been helpful to the Court's u n d e rs ta n d in g of the factual context in which the pretrial motions for preliminary injunction, d i s c o v e ry, and sanctions have arisen. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge's reliance on j u d i c ia l economy as a basis for denying the motion to transfer venue was not clearly e rr o n e o u s . The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's denial of Defendants' motions to tra n s f e r venue was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, I T IS HEREBY ORDERED that upon consideration and review of Defendants' a p p e a l of the Magistrate Judge's order denying Defendants' motion to transfer venue (Dkt. N o s . 123, 125), the Magistrate Judge's order denying Defendants' motions to transfer venue ( D k t . No. 115) is AFFIRMED.

Dated: December 8, 2008

/s/ Robert Holmes Bell ROBERT HOLMES BELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4