Maryland Casualty Company v. Shayatovich et al

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties joint motion for transfer of venue is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 13.) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter shall be transferred to the Western District of Missouri, Central Division. re: 13 Joint MOTION to Transfer Case to Western District of Missouri, Central Division filed by Defendant Joseph B Smith Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 11/26/12. (JWJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW SHAYATOVICH, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:12CV01625 AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This action for declaratory relief is before the Court on the parties’ joint motion to
transfer venue to the Central Division of the Western District of Missouri. In this suit
Plaintiff Maryland Casualty Company seeks a declaration that it had no duty to defend or
indemnify Defendant Andrew Shayatovich in the state court action brought by Defendant
Joseph B. Smith to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle
accident involving both Defendants that occurred in Laclede County, Missouri. For the
reasons stated below, the parties’ joint motion shall be granted.
The record reflects that Plaintiff is a foreign corporation organized under the laws
of the state of Maryland and authorized to conduct business in the state of Missouri, and
both Defendants are Missouri residents. In addition, the alleged amount in controversy
exceeds seventy five thousand dollars ($75,000), exclusive of interest and costs.
Therefore, jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1332. Inasmuch as both defendants are
residents of Missouri, and one defendant, Smith, resides within the Eastern District of

Missouri, venue in this district is also proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(1).
With respect to transfer of venue, the relevant facts are that the underlying accident
occurred in the Central Division of the Western District; Plaintiff’s counsel are based in
Kansas City, Missouri, in the Western District of Missouri; and Defendant Shayatovich is
a resident of Boone County, which is also located in the Central Division of the Western
District. Defendant Smith resides in the Eastern District of Missouri, but asserts he has
no objection to the proposed transfer of venue. The parties further contend that most, if
not all, of the witnesses with knowledge of the issues in this action will be found in the
Central Division of the Western District.
Where, as here, jurisdiction and venue are proper, transfer of venue is governed by
28 U.S.C. § 1404. Section 1404(a) 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.” “‘The determination whether to grant or deny a
request to transfer under § 1404(a) is within the sound discretion of the trial court.’”
Singleton v. Dannie Gilder, Inc., No. 4:12–CV–01367 (CEJ), 2012 WL 5384879,* 1
(E.D. Mo. Nov. 1, 2012) (quoting Hubbard v. White, 755 F.2d 692, 694 (8th Cir.1985)).
A motion to transfer “require[s] a case-by-case evaluation of the particular circumstances
at hand and a consideration of all relevant factors.” Terra Int’l, Inc. v. Mississippi Chem.
Corp., 119 F.3d 688, 691 (8th Cir. 1997). In making its decision a court should consider:

2

“(1) the convenience of the parties; (2) the convenience of nonparty witnesses; (3) the
availability of judicial process to compel testimony from hostile witnesses; (4) the
governing law; (5) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (6) the possibility of
delay and prejudice if transfer is granted; and (7) practical considerations of cost and
efficiency.” Singleton, 2012 WL 5384879, at *1. “The ‘primary, if not most important’
of these interests is the convenience of the witnesses.” Id. (quoting Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
v. City Merchandise, 176 F. Supp. 2d 951, 959 (E.D. Mo. 2001)).
Taking into account the relevant factors and the parties’ agreement with respect to
the place of venue, the Court is satisfied that transfer of venue to the Central Division of
the Western District is proper and will order such a transfer.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ joint motion for transfer of venue is
GRANTED. (Doc. No. 13.)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter shall be transferred to the Western
District of Missouri, Central Division.

AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 26th day of November, 2012.

3