The Cincinnati Casualty Company v. Worldwide Recycling Equipment Sales, LLC et al

Filing 23

ORDER granting 16 Worldwide's Motion to Transfer this Case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri; denying AS MOOT Defendant Worldwide's Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative to Stay 8 ; denying Cinci nnati Casualty Company's Motion to Consolidate 14 ; denying Defendant Worldwide's Notice of Filing Motion for Consolidation 18 , Plaintiff's Notice of Consent to Consolidation 21 and Plaintiff's Consent to Transfer 22 as these are merely notices and are not separate motions. Signed on 7/26/13 by Chief District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. (Enss, Rhonda)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
THE CINCINNATI CASUALTY COMPANY
Plaintiff,
vs.

WORLDWIDE RECYCLING EQUIPMENT
SALES, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 13-CV-04103-W-FJG

ORDER
Currently pending before the Court is Worldwide Recycling Equipment Sales
LLC’s (“Worldwide’s”) Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative to Stay (Doc. # 8), Plaintiff
Cincinnati Casualty Company’s Motion to Consolidate (Doc. # 14); Defendant
Worldwide’s Motion to Transfer Case to the Eastern District of Missouri (Doc. # 16),
Worldwide’s Notice of Filing Motion for Consolidation (Doc. # 18), Plaintiff’s Notice of
Consent to Consolidation (Doc. # 21) and Plaintiff’s Notice of Consent to Transfer (Doc.
# 22).
I. BACKGROUND
This case concerns insurance coverage and distribution of insurance proceeds
relating to the loss of real property which is located in Moberly, Missouri. On April 23,
2013, Worldwide filed an action for vexatious refusal to pay under the policy against
Cincinnati in the Circuit Court of Randolph County, Missouri. That case was removed
by Cincinnati to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and

is currently pending in that court. Also on April 23, 2013, Cincinnati filed the instant
interpleader and declaratory judgment action in this case regarding insurance proceeds
under the policy against Worldwide and the other defendants.
On May 20, 2013, Worldwide filed a Motion to Dismiss the instant action as an
anticipatory suit and also because of a action which was currently pending in the
Missouri state courts. On June 3, 2013, plaintiff Cincinnati Casualty filed a Motion to
Consolidate an action that had been removed to the Eastern District of Missouri with
this action. Worldwide requests that the Court transfer this action to the Eastern District
of Missouri pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) because the action “might have been
brought” in that district and also because jurisdiction and venue are proper there.
Worldwide also states that this action should be transferred for the convenience of the
parties and witnesses.
II. STANDARD
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), states: “[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 other district or division to which
all parties have consented.” “The statute was drafted in accordance with the doctrine of
forum non conveniens, permitting transfer to a more convenient forum, even though the
venue is proper. . . .Congress, in passing § 1404(a), was primarily concerned with the
problems arising where, despite the propriety of the plaintiff’s venue selection, the
chosen forum was an inconvenient one.” In re Apple, Inc., 602 F.3d 909, 912 (8th Cir.),
cert. denied,131 S.Ct. 838, 178 L.Ed.2d 560 (2010)(internal citations and quotations
omitted).

2

III. DISCUSSION
In its Motion to Transfer Worldwide states that this case could have been brought
in the Eastern District of Missouri because all of the defendants are residents of the
Eastern District and plaintiff issued the insurance policy to a defendant located in the
Eastern District which covered property also located in that district. Defendant also
states that the factors of convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of
justice also weigh in favor of transferring this case. On July 16, 2013, plaintiff filed a
notice stating that it has no objection to and consents to Defendant Worldwide’s Motion
to Transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for good cause shown and with no opposition indicated, the Court
hereby GRANTS Worldwide’s Motion to Transfer this Case to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (Doc. # 16). The Court DENIES AS MOOT
Defendant Worldwide’s Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative to Stay (Doc. # 8),
DENIES Cincinnati Casualty Company’s Motion to Consolidate (Doc. # 14), DENIES
Defendant Worldwide’s Notice of Filing Motion for Consolidation (Doc. # 18), Plaintiff’s
Notice of Consent to Consolidation (Doc. # 21) and Plaintiff’s Consent to Transfer (Doc.
# 22) as these are merely notices and are not separate motions.

S/ FERNANDO J. GAITAN, JR.
Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr.
Chief United States District Judge

Date: July 26, 2013
Kansas City, Missouri

3