Skyers et al v. MGM Grand Hotel LLC
Filing
9
OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 4/1/2015. (tf, n.m.) [Transferred from New Jersey on 4/3/2015.]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
GUAJANA SKYERS and
TORY SKYERS,
Civil No. 14-4631 (NLH/AMD)
Plaintiffs,
OPINION
v.
MGM GRAND HOTEL LLC
doing business as
MGM GRAND RISK MANAGEMENT
GROUP,
Defendant.
APPEARANCES:
GUAJANA SKYERS
TORY SKYERS
301 BACK CREEK ROAD
WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP, NJ 08085
Appearing pro se
JASON S. FEINSTEIN
JILL RACHEL COHEN
ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC
2000 LENOX DRIVE, SUITE 203
P.O. BOX 5404
PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY 08543
On behalf of defendant
HILLMAN, District Judge
Presently before the Court is the motion of defendant to
dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint for forum non conveniens, or in
the alternative, to transfer venue to Nevada.
For the reasons
expressed below, defendant’s motion to dismiss will be denied,
but its motion to transfer will be granted.
BACKGROUND
On a trip to Las Vegas, Nevada in May 2013 to renew their
wedding vows, Guajana and Tory Skyers, appearing here pro se,
chose to stay at defendant MGM Grand Hotel.
Plaintiffs claim
that they parked their car in the MGM Hotel parking garage and
decided to take the parking garage stairs to the street level.
Ms. Skyers claims that she stepped into a large hole at the
bottom of the stairs, causing her to “twist her ankle to the
right and left and [fall] flat on her right side, scraping her
hands and hitting her right arm, and the right side of her body
on the pavement.”
(Compl. ¶ 9.)
Plaintiffs claim that after
waiting for over twenty-five minutes for assistance from the
hotel staff, Ms. Skyers was transported to the emergency room,
where she was diagnosed as having a severe ankle sprain.
Ms.
Skyers claims that she has suffered severe physical and
emotional distress as a result of her injury, and that Mr.
Skyers has also suffered emotional distress by witnessing Ms.
Skyers’ pain, and because of her inability to care for herself
and their minor children.
Plaintiffs also claim that they have
incurred, and continue to incur, substantial medical expenses.
Plaintiffs seek over $400,000 for their compensatory damages,
and $100,000 in punitive damages.
Plaintiffs filed their complaint in the New Jersey Superior
Court, and defendant removed the action to this Court.
2
Defendant has now moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims based on
forum non conveniens grounds.
Alternatively, defendant asks
that the case be transferred to Nevada.
Plaintiffs have opposed
defendant’s motion.
DISCUSSION
A.
Standard for Jurisdiction
Defendant’s notice of removal states that this Court may
exercise subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1332 because plaintiffs’ claims exceed $75,000 and complete
diversity of citizenship exists between the parties.
Upon a
review of defendant’s notice of removal, the Court found that
defendant had not properly established subject matter
jurisdiction, and the Court ordered defendant to file a revised
notice of removal to properly articulate the parties’
citizenship.
Defendant has now done so.
Plaintiffs are
citizens of New Jersey, and defendant MGM Grand Hotel, LLC, dba
MGM Grand, is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of
business in Las Vegas, Nevada, with its sole member being MGM
Resorts International, which is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada.
B.
Analysis
Defendant has moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims against it
pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
A federal
court has discretion to dismiss a case on forum non conveniens
3
grounds “when an alternative forum has jurisdiction to hear the
case, and trial in the chosen forum would establish
oppressiveness and vexation to a defendant out of all proportion
to plaintiff's convenience, or the chosen forum is inappropriate
because of considerations affecting the court's own
administrative and legal problems.”
Sinochem Intern. Co. Ltd.
v. Malaysia Intern. Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 429 (2007)
(quotations and citations omitted).
Despite defendant’s invocation of the forum non conveniens
doctrine in this case, the common law doctrine’s primary
application is “in cases where the alternative forum is abroad,”
and only “perhaps in rare instances where a state or territorial
court serves litigational convenience best.”
omitted).
Id. (citations
For almost all other cases with concerns about venue
within the United States, “Congress has codified the doctrine
and has provided for transfer, rather than dismissal, when a
sister federal court is the more convenient place for trial of
the action.”
Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (“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.”))
(other citations omitted).
In this case, defendant argues that New Jersey is not the
proper forum for plaintiffs’ case because everything related to
4
plaintiffs’ claims exists in Nevada, and the case must therefore
be dismissed for forum non conveniens.
Because this matter does
not implicate a foreign forum or specific state court interests,
however, the forum non convenience doctrine is not applicable.
The Court will therefore consider defendant’s alternative basis
for relief, which is its request to transfer plaintiffs’ case to
the district court in Nevada.
As noted by the Supreme Court in Sinochem, in federal court
venue questions are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) or 28 U.S.C.
§ 1406.
Section 1404(a) provides for the transfer of a case
where both the original and the requested venue are proper,
while § 1406 applies where the original venue is improper and
provides for either transfer or dismissal of the case.
See
Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 878 (3d Cir. 1995)
(explaining that although either statute could theoretically
provide a basis for the transfer of a case, only § 1406 can
support a dismissal).
Defendant in this case has moved for
transfer pursuant to § 1404(a).
Even though the “analysis of whether transfer is appropriate
does not necessarily require extensive investigation,”
Van
Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517, 529 (1988), a district
court considering a § 1404(a) motion should evaluate both the
convenience of the parties and various public-interest
considerations, Atlantic Marine Const. Co., Inc. v. U.S. Dist.
5
Court for Western Dist. of Texas, 134 S. Ct. 568, 581 n.6
(2013).
Factors relating to the parties' private interests
include: (1) relative ease of access to sources of proof; (2)
availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling,
and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses; (3)
possibility of view of premises, if view would be appropriate to
the action; and (4) all other practical problems that make trial
of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.
Atlantic Marine,
134 S. Ct. at 581 n.6 (quoting Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454
U.S. 235, 241, n.6 (1981)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Public-interest factors may include: (1) the administrative
difficulties flowing from court congestion; (2) the local
interest in having localized controversies decided at home; and
(3) the interest in having the trial of a diversity case in a
forum that is at home with the law.
marks omitted).
Id. (internal quotation
The Court must also give some weight to the
plaintiffs' choice of forum.
Id. (citation omitted).
The
decision to transfer falls in the sound discretion of the trial
court.
Lony v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 886 F.2d 628, 632
(3d Cir. 1989).
In this case, other than the fact that plaintiffs are
citizens of New Jersey and Ms. Skyers claims that she has
received some medical treatment in New Jersey, all other public
and private factors in the transfer analysis compel the transfer
6
of the matter to Nevada.
Located in Nevada are: (1) the parking
garage where Ms. Skyers fell, (2) the first responders who
provided medical treatment to Ms. Skyers, (3) the emergency
department staff who treated Ms. Skyers, (4) any witnesses to
Ms. Skyers’ fall, (5) defendant’s employees who responded to Ms.
Skyers’ accident, (5) the entity or people responsible for
maintaining the parking garage, and (6) the business records
relating to the maintenance of the parking garage, procedures
for staff to respond to accidents, and personnel records of
employees who assisted Ms. Skyers.
Also significant to the transfer analysis is that Nevada law
will most likely apply to plaintiffs’ claims, as Ms. Skyers’
personal injury, and plaintiffs’ attendant claims, occurred in
Nevada.
See Woessner v. Air Liquide Inc., 242 F.3d 469, 474 (3d
Cir. 2001) (explaining that it “is the location of the building,
not the individuals who might have been tortiously harmed, that
is relevant” to the choice of law analysis in premises liability
cases); Kawamura v. Boyd Gaming Corp., 2014 WL 584760, *4-5 (D.
Nev. 2014) (under Nevada's choice-of-law jurisprudence for
actions based in personal injury, including negligence, strict
liability, and emotional distress, Restatement (Second) of
Conflict of Laws § 146: “In an action for a personal injury, the
local law of the state where the injury occurred determines the
rights and liabilities of the parties, unless, with respect to
7
the particular issue, some other state has a more significant
relationship under the principles stated in § 6 to the
occurrence and the parties, in which event the local law of the
other state will be applied.”); General Motors Corp. v. Eighth
Judicial Dist. Court of State of Nev. ex rel. County of Clark,
134 P.3d 111, 117 (Nev. 2006) (“The general rule in section 146
requires the court to apply the law of the state where the
injury took place.”).
The Court acknowledges the pro se plaintiffs’ argument
concerning their choice of forum, as well the superior financial
status of defendant and its presumptive ability to absorb the
costs of traveling from Nevada to litigate plaintiffs’ claims in
New Jersey, as opposed to the burden it would place on
plaintiffs to litigate their case in Nevada.
The financial
inequity of the parties, however, cannot override all the other
factors in this case, especially when many non-party witnesses
are located in Nevada, and the situs of the accident is in
Nevada and cannot be brought to New Jersey for inspection.
See
Rutherford v. Sherburne Corp., 616 F. Supp. 1456, 1463 (D.N.J.
1985) (“Of primary importance to this [transfer] decision is the
fact that all of the most significant nonparty witnesses reside
in [transferee forum].”); Mancini v. Benihana Nat. Corp., 2013
WL 6147808, *2 (D.N.J. 2013) (citation omitted) (explaining that
courts have an interest in deciding local controversies, and
8
consequently, when an action involves injuries sustained in a
particular locale, the public interest supports adjudication of
the controversy in that locale).
Moreover, even though
plaintiffs’ choice of forum is entitled to deference, that
deference is provided unless – as is the case here - the other
factors strongly favor transfer, and if that choice has little
connection with the operative facts of the lawsuit.
Mancini,
2013 WL 6147808 at *2 (citing Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp., 431
F.2d 22, 25 (3d Cir. 1970); Tischio v. Bontex, Inc., 16 F. Supp.
2d 511, 521 (D.N.J. 1998)).
Plaintiffs voluntarily traveled to Las Vegas for vacation,
and unfortunately Ms. Skyers suffered an injury in defendant’s
parking garage on her first day there.
Because of the
circumstances of Ms. Skyers’ injury, the nature of plaintiffs’
claims, and the private and public policy factors, plaintiffs’
case belongs in Nevada. 1
1
A similar case had the same result. See Lauria v. Mandalay
Corp., 2008 WL 3887608, *5 (D.N.J. 2008). There, a New Jersey
citizen attended a trade show at a conference center in Las
Vegas, where she slipped and fell on debris or liquid on the
floor, suffering injuries. After balancing the public and
private factors, the case was transferred to Nevada. The court
explained,
After considering all relevant factors, this Court
concludes that transfer of venue is proper. Here, the
Defendants prefer Nevada, the claim arose in Nevada and a
number of listed non-party witnesses are present in Nevada.
Furthermore, Nevada has a local interest in determining
local negligence issues, and the District of Nevada is
9
CONCLUSION
The Court must deny defendant’s motion to dismiss
plaintiffs’ case on forum non conveniens grounds, but it will
grant defendant’s request to transfer the matter to Nevada.
An
appropriate Order will be entered.
Date: April 1, 2015
At Camden, New Jersey
s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
likely more familiar with Nevada law. . . . Most of the
relevant evidence on this issue [of the floor conditions]
would likely come from Nevada--the Convention Center is
there and the owners of and workers at the convention
center are presumably located in Nevada, as well as the
emergency room and initial treatment personnel.
On the other hand, New Jersey is Lauria's chosen forum, and
the doctors that have treated Lauria after she returned to
New Jersey are in New York and New Jersey. Plaintiffs also
claim that witness[es] employed by Madden and Nordstrom
that were with Lauria at the time of the accident are
located in New Jersey. However, Lauria does not identify
any particular witnesses that would be inconvenienced by
the transfer. After balancing all of the factors, the
Court concludes that this case should be transferred to the
District of Nevada.
Lauria, 2008 WL 3887608 at *5.
10
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?