Gurau v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Filing
12
ORDER granting 4 Motion to transfer venue Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 11/3/2014 (ECW)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
VALERIU GURAU and
NATALIA GURAU
PLAINTIFFS
VS.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-cv-70(DCB)(MTP)
STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This cause is before the Court on the defendant State Farm
Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”)’s motion to
transfer venue (docket entry 4).
Having carefully considered the
motion and the plaintiffs’ response, the memoranda of the parties
and the applicable law, and being fully advised in the premises,
the Court finds as follows:
This civil action arises from a motor vehicle accident that
occurred
on
March
22,
2013,
in
Dallas
County,
Texas,
where
plaintiff Valeriu Gurau was operating a 2012 Lincoln MDX owned by
Michael Wheelis.
The other vehicle involved in the accident was
owned by Ramiro Andrade and was being driven by Jorge Gama Vergara.
Plaintiff Natalia Gurau was a passenger in the vehicle being driven
by Valeriu Gurau.
The Guraus filed their Complaint in this case against State
Farm in the Circuit Court of Adams County, Mississippi, and the
action was timely removed by State Farm to this Court on the basis
of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.
In their complaint, the
Guraus
allege
that
Vergara
was
operating
an
uninsured
motor
vehicle, and that State Farm had issued an insurance policy on the
Wheelis vehicle, in force at the time of the accident, which
provided uninsured motorist coverage.
The Guraus further allege
that they are entitled to uninsured motorist benefits from State
Farm for bodily injuries allegedly sustained as a result of the
accident.
The Guraus also allege in their complaint that they are
residents of the State of Texas.
The Texas Peace Officer’s Crash
Report reflects that the Guraus’ address is in Dallas, Texas.
The
Report further reflects that the addresses of Jorge Gama Vergara,
Ramiro Andrade, and Michael Wheelis are in Dallas, Texas.
Prior to filing suit, the plaintiffs presented a claim to
State Farm for uninsured motorist benefits.
The letter reflects
that the Guraus were treated at Solar Health by Dr. Jose Equival
and Dr. Haroon Rasheed, and at D.F.W. Open MRI, all of which are
located in Dallas, Texas.
The Guraus’ attorney also submitted
bills to State Farm incurred by the Guraus from North Dallas
Chiropractic, which is located in Dallas, Texas.
State Farm moves to transfer this civil action to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division.
State Farm contends that this suit’s only connection to
Mississippi is that Wheelis obtained his State Farm policy while he
was a resident of Mississippi and before he moved out of state.
The Court will assume, for the sake of expediency, that venue is
2
proper in Mississippi.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides that, for the convenience
of parties and witnesses, and in the interests of justice, a
district court may transfer any civil action to any other district
or division where it might have been brought.
The statute calls
for a two-part inquiry, (1) “whether the action sought to be
transferred is one that ‘might have been brought’ in the district
court where the movant seeks to have the case litigated, i.e., the
‘transferee’
court.
‘convenience
of
If
parties
so,
and
(2)
whether,
witnesses’
and
considering
‘the
interest
the
of
justice’ a transfer to the proposed district is appropriate.”
Hernandez v. Graebel Van Lines, 761 F.Supp. 983 (E.D. N.Y. 1991).
The Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, is a proper venue
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2).
The second requirement involves weighing factors which fall
into two groups: (1) those relating to the convenience of the
litigants; and (2) those relating to the public interest in the
fair and efficient administration of justice.
Gulf Oil Corp. v.
Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508-09 (1947); Walter Fuller Aircraft Sales
v. The Rep. of the Philippines, 965 F.2d 1375, 1389 (5th Cir.
1992).
The convenience factors break down into the following: (1)
plaintiff’s choice of forum; (2) the ease of access to sources of
proof; (3) the location of key witnesses in a forum; (4) the
3
availability of compulsory process for the attendance of unwilling,
and the cost of obtaining the attendance of willing, witnesses; (5)
the distance witnesses and parties would have to travel; (6) the
possibility of a view of the premises, if view would be appropriate
to the action; (7) the place of the alleged wrong; (8) the
possibility of delay and prejudice if transfer is granted; (9)
other trial expenses; and (10) all other practical matters that
would tend to make the trial easy, expeditious and inexpensive.
Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 508; Walter, 965 F.2d at 1389.
The public interest factors consist of: (1) the relative
backlog
and
other
administrative
difficulties
in
the
two
jurisdictions; (2) the fairness of placing the burdens of jury duty
on the citizens of the state with the greater interest in the
dispute; (3) the local interest in adjudicating local disputes;
(4) the appropriateness of having the jurisdiction whose law will
govern adjudicate the dispute in order to avoid difficult problems
in conflicts of laws.
Id.
The party seeking transfer bears the
burden of establishing that transfer to another district would best
serve the interests of justice. Embree v. Cutter Biologics, 760 F.
Supp. 103, 105 (N.D. Miss. 1991).
As stated, the State of Mississippi has little connection with
this litigation, being the state in which Wheelis obtained his
State Farm policy before moving out of state.
When plaintiffs
choose a forum which has little or no connection to the litigation,
4
their choice of venue is not entitled to great weight.
Waller v.
Burlington Northern Railroad Co., 650 F.Supp. 988 (N.D. Ill. 1987);
Embree, 760 F.Supp. at 105; Paul v. International Precious Metals
Corp., 613 F.Supp. 174, 179 (S.D. Miss. 1985).
The “most significant factor” in determining whether venue
should be transferred “is the convenience of party and non-party
witnesses.”
Apache Prod. Co. v. Employer's Ins., 154 F.R.D. 650,
653 (S.D. Miss. 1994).
The convenience of non-party witnesses is
often considered to be the most important of the two.
Miot v.
Kechijian, 830 F.Supp. 1460 (S.D. Fla. 1993); Cook v. Atchison,
Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 816 F.Supp. 667 (D. Kan. 1993).
The
convenience of liability witnesses is generally given more weight
than the convenience of damage witnesses, because without liability
there can be no damages, and because a party’s damage witnesses can
frequently
testify
by
deposition
without
prejudice
effectiveness of that party’s presentation of its case.
to
the
Kahhan v.
City of Fort Lauderdale, 566 F.Supp. 736 (E.D. Penn. 1983); Schmidt
v. Dog Leaders for the Blind, 544 F.Supp. 42 (E.D. Penn. 1982).
A
closely related concern is the availability of compulsory process
to compel the attendance of witnesses.
Bros.
Oil,
Inc.
v.
Pannil,
697
F.Supp.
Cook, supra; Kirschner
804
(D.
Del.
1988);
Leonardos, Inc. v. Greathall Ltd., 714 F.Supp. 949 (N.D. Ill.
1989).
5
Evaluating the above factors, the Court finds that transfer to
the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, is appropriate.
The events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in Texas.
As a
result, the primary witnesses are located in Texas. The plaintiffs
are also Texas residents. The vehicle’s owner is a Texas resident.
The
uninsured
motorist
is
a
Texas
resident.
The
accident
investigation took place in Texas. Thus, the following convenience
factors favor transfer: ease of access to sources of proof,
location of key witnesses, availability of compulsory process, cost
of
obtaining
attendance
of
witnesses,
distance
witnesses
and
parties would have to travel, possibility of a view of the accident
scene, place of the alleged wrong, other trial expenses, and all
other practical matters that would tend to make the trial easy,
expeditious and inexpensive.
The plaintiff’s choice of forum also does not decisively weigh
against transfer of this action.
A plaintiff’s choice of forum is
entitled to some deference and generally should not be disturbed
unless the balance of factors strongly favors the moving party.
Houston Trial Reports, Inc. v. LRP Publications, Inc., 85 F.Supp.2d
663, 667 (S.D. Tex. 1999).1
However, a court may not attribute
1
The district court for the Southern District of New York has
observed that a plaintiff’s choice of forum generally weighs against
transfer “if either (a) the plaintiff resides in the chosen forum; or
(b) the operative facts giving rise to the action occurred there.”
Meyers v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2009 WL 804672 (S.D. N.Y. March 26,
2009)(citation omitted). Neither is applicable in the present case
since the Guraus reside in Texas and the operative facts giving rise
to the action occurred there.
6
“decisive
weight”
to
a
plaintiff’s
choice
of
forum.
A
“[p]laintiff’s choice of forum is clearly a factor to be considered
but in and of itself is neither conclusive nor determinative.”
In
re Horseshoe Entertainment, 337 F.3d 429, 434 (5th Cir. 2003).
As for the public interest factors, the State of Texas has the
greater interest in this dispute, and the burdens of jury duty
should be fairly placed upon its citizens. Similarly, Texas as the
site of the accident has a local interest in adjudicating this
dispute.
Texas law will govern the causation and damages issues,
and the Court perceives no conflicts of laws issues.
The convenience factors include “the possibility of delay and
prejudice if transfer is granted,” and the public interest factors
include “the relative backlog and other administrative difficulties
in the two jurisdictions.”
The plaintiffs contend that judges in
the Northern District of Texas have a heavier caseload than judges
in
the
Southern
District
of
statistics in support thereof.
Mississippi,
and
have
submitted
Accepting the statistics as true,
the Court does not agree that such evidence strongly weighs against
transfer.
See In re Genentech, 566 F.3d 1338, 1347 (5th Cir.
2009)(relative speed of transferor and proposed transferee courts
should not alone outweigh other factors”); P & S Business Machines,
Inc.
v.
Canon
USA,
Inc.,
331
F.3d
804,
808
(11th
Cir.
2003)(“Although docket congestion, if proven, may be an appropriate
consideration in a § 1404 motion to transfer, case law does not
7
suggest
that
factor.”).
docket
congestion
is,
by
itself,
a
dispositive
The Court therefore finds that both the convenience
factors and the public interest factors favor transfer to the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that State Farm’s motion to transfer
venue (docket entry 4) is GRANTED.
An Order of Transfer to the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, shall follow.
SO ORDERED, this the 3rd day of November, 2014.
/s/ David Bramlette
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?