COYLE et al v. BOBDANCO, INC. et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM ORDER that this action shall be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 11/15/2013. (TH, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE

THOMAS COYLE and PAUL BRIGHT,
Plaintiffs,

Civil No. 13-5420 (RMB/JS)
MEMORANDUM ORDER

v.
BOBDANCO, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court upon its own motion.
The Court conducted an in person conference with the parties on
October 30, 2013 and subsequently issued an Order to Show Cause
as to why the above-captioned matter should not be sua sponte
transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) due to
this matter’s substantial similarity to a litigation already
pending in that Court before the Honorable Juan R. Sanchez,
Civil Action No. 13-1821, Bobdanco, Inc., v. Thomas Coyle et al.
Both Plaintiffs and Defendants have filed a response to
this Court’s Order, advising the Court that they do not oppose
transfer of this case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

[Dkt. Ents. 13-1 & 14].

This Court may transfer this case to a district where it
might have been brought for “the convenience of parties and

1

witnesses, in the interest of justice.”

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

The Court has broad discretion in exercising such power.

Jumara

v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 883 (3d Cir. 1995).

When

deciding whether to transfer a case pursuant to Section 1404(a),
the Court must consider both private and public interest
factors.

Id. at 879.

Private interests include: (1) the

plaintiffs' forum preference as manifested by the plaintiffs'
original forum choice; (2) the defendants’ forum preference; (3)
whether the claim arose elsewhere; (4) the convenience of the
parties as indicated by their relative physical and financial
condition; (5) the convenience of the witnesses; and (6) the
location of the books and records.

Id.

Public interests

include: (1) the enforceability of the judgment; (2) practical
considerations that could make the trial easy, expeditious, or
inexpensive; (3) the relative administrative difficulty in the
two fora resulting from court congestion; (4) the local interest
in deciding local controversies at home; (5) the public policies
of the fora; and (6) the familiarity of the trial judge with the
applicable state law in diversity cases. Id.
While the Defendants removed this matter to this Court, it
appears Defendants no longer prefer New Jersey as a venue, as
evidenced by their representation to the Court that they do not
oppose a transfer to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Dkt. Ent. 14].

Similarly, Plaintiffs have not expressed a

2

[See

preference for litigating in the District of New Jersey.
Dkt. Ent. 13-1].

The relevant events in this case appear to

have occurred in Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania.
¶¶ 3, 4, 10, 11).

[See

(Amend. Compl.

All Defendants are alleged to be either

citizens or residents of Pennsylvania. (Id. at ¶¶ 3, 4, & 5).
Plaintiffs attended training programs at Defendant Propel’s
Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania office.

(Id. ¶ 11).

Further, it

appears Defendants’ alleged breach of contract, fraud and
conversion, which gives rise to this civil action, occurred in
Pennsylvania.

(See generally Amend. Compl.)

Pennsylvania

therefore has an interest in deciding this local controversy at
home.
In addition, as the parties are already litigating a
similar matter in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the
convenience of the parties, convenience to witnesses and
location of records also militate in favor of transfer.
Moreover, the fact that the related litigation is already
pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania points to
practical considerations of efficiency being best satisfied by
transferring the above-captioned matter to the same Court.
In light of the foregoing factors, it appears to be more
convenient for the parties and witnesses, and in the interest of
justice, to transfer this case to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

3

ACCORDINGLY, it is on this 15th day of November 2013,
hereby ORDERED that this action shall be TRANSFERRED to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge

4