Weeks Marine, Inc. et al v. Stokes
Filing
31
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part 20 Motion to Change Venue: For the reasons stated, this case shall immediately be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on February 1, 2012 (mbs)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
HATTIESBURG DIVISION
WEEKS MARINE, INC., et al.
v.
PLAINTIFFS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-112-KS-MTP
CLARENCE STOKES
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
For the reasons stated below, the Court grants in part Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss or, Alternatively, to Transfer Venue [20]. This case shall immediately be
transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
I. BACKGROUND
Defendant was a seaman employed by Plaintiffs aboard a dredge. Defendant
allegedly sustained personal injuries when he fell from an unsecured ladder. Plaintiff
initiated the present action on May 20, 2011, seeking a declaratory judgment as to
whether Defendant is entitled to maintenance and cure. On May 25, 2011, Defendant
filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana,
seeking damages under the Jones Act, among other things. Defendant failed, however,
to assert a jury demand. One day later, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss his
Louisiana case, which was granted. On September 21, 2011, Defendant – represented
by different counsel – refiled his lawsuit in the Eastern District of Louisiana, and this
time he requested a jury trial.
On September 28, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a motion in the Louisiana case,
requesting that it be transferred to this Court. That motion is still pending. On
November 29, 2011, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, to Transfer
Venue [20], which the Court now addresses. As the Court concludes that this case
should be transferred to the United States District for the Eastern District of
Louisiana, it declines to address Defendant’s dismissal arguments.
II. DISCUSSION
A.
Section 1404(a) Analysis
District courts “have broad discretion in deciding whether to order a transfer”
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In re Volkswagen of Am., 545 F.3d 304, 311 (5th Cir.
2008) (punctuation omitted). Section 1404(a) provides: “For 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). The first question
under Section 1404(a) is whether the case “might have been brought in the destination
venue.” In re Volkswagen of Am., 545 F.3d at 312. In the present case, it is undisputed
that the case might have been brought in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana.
Next, the party seeking a transfer must show “good cause.” Id. at 315. Good
cause has been defined in the following manner:
When viewed in the context of § 1404(a), to show good cause means that
a moving party, in order to support its claim for a transfer, must satisfy
the statutory requirements and clearly demonstrate that a transfer is for
the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice. Thus,
when the transferee venue is not clearly more convenient than the venue
2
chosen by the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s choice should be respected. When
the movant demonstrates that the transferee venue is clearly more
convenient, however, it has shown good cause and the district court
should therefore grant the transfer.
Id. (punctuation and footnote omitted). To determine whether the transferee venue is
clearly more convenient than the plaintiff’s chosen venue, the Court looks at various
factors impacting the private and public interests at play in the case. Id.
The private interest factors are: (1) the relative ease of access to the
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. The public interest factors are (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.
Id. (punctuation and citations omitted). While these factors “are appropriate for most
transfer cases, they are not necessarily exhaustive or exclusive,” and none of them
possesses “dispositive weight.” Id.
In the Court’s opinion, the first, third, and fourth private interest factors point
to the Eastern District of Louisiana as the appropriate venue for this case. Although
Defendant is a resident of Sumrall, Mississippi, the accident at issue occurred on board
the M/V CAPTAIN FRANK, while it was docked at Plaintiffs’ shipyard in Houma,
Louisiana. The record contains no evidence of the dredge’s current location, but the
Court assumes – in the absence of such evidence – that it remains docked in Louisiana.
Regardless of where the dredge is now, the injury occurred in Louisiana. That being
the case, the Court believes that it would be easier to investigate, conduct discovery,
3
and try this case in the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Likewise, the Eastern District of Louisiana presents a more convenient venue
for most of the potential fact witnesses in this case. Defendant presented an affidavit
in which he identified nine individuals who were aboard the ship on the day of his
accident. Of those nine, eight are Louisiana residents, and one is a Florida resident.
According to Defendant, the two individuals closest to him at the time of the accident
were from Louisiana. Plaintiffs argue that the Court should disregard Defendant’s
affidavit because none of his coworkers witnessed the accident.1 However, Defendant
believes that at least two of the identified coworkers were close enough to hear him
fall. Furthermore, regardless of whether Defendant’s coworkers witnessed the accident,
they may have discoverable information regarding the condition of the ladder at issue
on the day of Defendant’s accident, as well as Plaintiffs’ relevant maintenance policies
and procedures.
Immediately after the accident, Defendant was hospitalized for a week at
Terebonne General Medical Center in Houma, Louisiana. He was then – by his own
request – transferred to Forrest General Hospital in Hattiesburg, Mississippi. He
continues to see a neurologist in Metairie, Louisiana, and other doctors in Hattiesburg,
Mississippi. Accordingly, in his initial disclosures, Defendant identified himself and
1
Plaintiffs also argue that Defendant’s affidavit is “a poorly veiled attempt” to
tilt the 1404(a) factors in his favor. Neither party to this matter has hesitated to
massage the facts relevant to the transfer factors in an attempt to obtain the venue
of their liking. Regardless of Defendant’s motivation in presenting the affidavit, it is
in evidence. Absent contrary evidence, the Court can not simply disregard it
because Plaintiffs are skeptical as to its bona fides.
4
hiss wife; a representative of Plaintiffs who resides in New Jersey; a doctor in Metairie,
Louisiana; “various doctors” at Terebonne General Medical Center in Houma,
Louisiana; and “various doctors” at Forrest General Hospital in Hattiesburg,
Mississippi, as potential witnesses. Additionally, Defendant testified that he has
received treatment for past injuries in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. Therefore,
Defendant’s medical records and treating doctors appear to be split evenly between
Mississippi and Louisiana.
The second private interest factor – the availability of compulsory process to
secure the attendance of witnesses – also points to the Eastern District of Louisiana
as the appropriate venue for this case. Generally, a trial subpoena issued by this Court
may only be served upon persons who reside within this district or within one hundred
miles of the Court. FED. R. CIV. P. 45(b)(2)(A), (B). The parties have not presented the
Court with specific addresses for each of the potential witnesses in this matter.
However, it is reasonable to assume that some of the witnesses who reside in Louisiana
will be outside the reach of this Court’s subpoena power.2 Of course, some witnesses
– specifically, Defendant’s Hattiesburg medical providers – will be outside the reach
of the Eastern District of Louisiana’s subpoena power. There are more identified
potential witnesses residing outside this district than within it, however. Accordingly,
this factor points to the Eastern District of Louisiana.
2
Hattiesburg, Mississippi – this Court’s location – is approximately 165 miles
from Houma, Louisiana; 113 miles from New Orleans, Louisiana; and 115 miles
from Metairie, Louisiana.
5
The public interest factors do not clearly point to either venue. The Court has
no knowledge as to the status of the docket of the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Accordingly, the “court congestion” factor is inapplicable. Further, both Louisiana and
Mississippi have an interest in this case. Defendant is a Mississippi resident, and
Plaintiffs are Louisiana businesses. Therefore, the “local interest” factor is also
inapplicable. Likewise, both this Court and the Eastern District of Louisiana are
capable of adjudicating the maritime issues presented by this case, and there are not
conflicts of law or foreign laws involved.
In light of the factors discussed above, the Court concludes that the Eastern
District of Louisiana is a clearly more convenient venue for this action than this
district. The place of alleged injury was in Louisiana, and most of the potential
witnesses reside in Louisiana. As the Fifth Circuit has noted: “[I]t is more convenient
for witnesses to testify at home[,] and . . . additional distance means additional travel
time; additional travel time increases the probability for meal and lodging expenses;
and additional travel time with overnight stays increase the time which these fact
witnesses must be away from their regular employment.” In re Volkswagen of Am.,
Inc., 545 F.3d at 317. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Eastern District of
Louisiana is clearly a more convenient venue for this action.
B.
Waiver
Plaintiffs argue that Defendant waived his right to request a transfer by initially
filing suit in Louisiana on May 25, 2011, and then voluntarily dismissing that suit. The
Court does not know why Defendant voluntarily dismissed his first complaint filed in
6
the Eastern District of Louisiana. However, the Court notes that Defendant was
represented by different counsel at that point, and that Defendant failed to request a
jury trial, which was his clear right under the Jones Act. Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515
U.S. 347, 351, 115 S. Ct. 2172, 132 L. Ed. 2d 314 (1995). When Defendant filed his
second complaint, it included a demand for a jury trial.
Regardless of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiffs have not cited any law whatsoever
in support of their argument that one may waive his right to request a transfer of
venue. Indeed, Section 1404(a)’s analysis is less concerned with the parties’ “rights”
than it is with “the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.”
See In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d at 313. In other words, this Court’s decision
to transfer a case pursuant to Section 1404(a) is not driven primarily by any one
party’s interests. Rather, it is driven by a number of factors, including the Court’s
interest in efficiency and the convenience of non-party witnesses. Therefore, the Court
is disinclined to hold that a party can waive the right to request a transfer pursuant
to Section 1404(a).
C.
The First-to-File Rule
Plaintiffs also argue that Defendant’s transfer request must be denied by
operation of the “first-to-file rule.” When related cases are pending before two federal
courts, the first-to-file rule instructs the court with the later-filed action to transfer it
to the first-filed forum. Am. Bankers Life Assurance Co. of Fla. v. Overton, 128 F. App’x
399, 403 (5th Cir. 2005). The rule is based on “principles of comity and sound judicial
administration.” Save Power v. Syntek Fin. Corp., 121 F.3d 947, 950 (5th Cir. 1997).
7
Its purpose is “to avoid the waste of duplication, to avoid rulings which may trench
upon the authority of sister courts, and to avoid piecemeal resolution of issues that call
for a uniform result.” W. Gulf Maritime Ass’n v. ILA Deep Sea Local 24, 751 F.2d 721,
729 (5th Cir. 1985).
However, this Court has previously held that the “rule yields to the convenience
of parties and witnesses, and the interests of justice.” Atl. Sounding Co. v. Steward,
No. 5:08-CV-307, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41187, at *5 (S.D. Miss. May 15, 2009).
Accordingly, “when a transfer analysis under section 1404(a) dictates that a case
should be transferred, this constitutes a compelling circumstance that warrants an
abrogation from the first-filed rule.” Id. (quoting Terra Int’l, Inc. v. Miss. Chem. Corp.,
119 F.3d 688, 697 n. 12 (8th Cir. 1997)). As the Court discussed above, the 1404(a)
factors point to the Eastern District of Louisiana as the more convenient venue for this
case. That “constitutes a compelling circumstance that warrants an abrogation from
the first-filed rule.” Id.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court grants in part Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss or, Alternatively, to Transfer Venue [20]. This case shall immediately be
transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this 1st day of February, 2012.
s/Keith Starrett
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
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?