ROBINSON, et al v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION et al

Filing 102

OPINION AND ORDER granting defts's motion regarding transfer; transferring matter to the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) and closing case. Signed by Judge Faith S. Hochberg on 7/28/2014. (nr, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

CLOSED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
:
:
:
:
Plaintiffs,
: Civil Case No. 11-4078 (FSH)
:
v.
: OPINION & ORDER
:
AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., : Date: July 28, 2014
:
Defendants.
:
:
WILLIAM J. ROBINSON and GAIL A.
ROBINSON,

HOCHBERG, District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court upon Defendants Flowserve’s, General Electric’s,
Goulds Pumps’, and Tata Chemical’s motion to transfer to the United States District Court for
the District of Wyoming pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). 1 (Dkt. Nos. 96 & 97.) The Court has
reviewed the submissions of the parties and considers the motion pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 78.
I.

BACKGROUND
This matter arises out of Plaintiff Robinson’s exposure to asbestos, his contraction of

mesothelioma, and his eventual death. Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Robinson was exposed to
asbestos while working at a soda ash factory in Wyoming, a job he held for close to 30 years.
Plaintiff sued a number of parties connected to this factory, including the factory’s current owner
1

The Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno, U.S.D.J., did not reach the issue of § 1404(a) transfer
when he ruled on Flowserve’s motion to dismiss based on improper venue when this matter was
in the MDL court. See MDL-875, E.D. Pa. Civil Action No. 11-67687, Dkt. No. 187 dated
January 24, 2013 at 2 (After finding that venue was proper in New Jersey, stating “[h]aving
decided the motion on these grounds, the Court need not reach the other arguments made by
Defendants or Plaintiff in their respective briefs.”). At that time, Flowserve had raised transfer
as an alternative argument in its motion to dismiss.
1

and several equipment suppliers. Only a handful of defendants remain: Flowserve, Goulds
Pumps, Tata Chemical, and General Electric. 2 All four remaining defendants favor transfer to
Wyoming.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), “[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.” The purpose of § 1404(a) is to “prevent the waste of time,
energy and money and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary
inconvenience and expense.”

Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964) (internal

quotations and citations omitted). A decision to transfer an action under this provision rests
within the sound discretion of the District Court. Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22,
29 (1988).
On a motion to transfer pursuant to § 1404(a), the District Court must undertake a
“flexible and individualized analysis,” balancing the factors set forth in the statute as well as a
number of other case specific factors. Courts in the Third Circuit apply the public and private
interest factors outlined in Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879-80 (3d Cir. 1995).
The private factors are: (1) the plaintiff’s choice of forum; (2) the defendant’s preference; (3)
where the claim arose; (4) the convenience of the witnesses, but only to the extent they may be
unavailable in one of the fora; (5) the convenience of parties; (6) the location of books and
records; and the public factors are: (7) the enforceability of any judgment; (8) any practical
considerations making trial easy, expeditious or inexpensive; (9) relative administrative
difficulty resulting from court congestion; (10) the local interest in deciding local controversies
2

The Court recently dismissed the remaining claims against Warren Pumps. Although no final
dismissal has been filed on the docket, Defendant Gardner Denver and Plaintiffs recently reached
a settlement in principle.
2

at home; (11) the public policies of the fora; and (12) the trial judge’s familiarity with applicable
state law. Id. The analysis, however, should not be limited to these factors, and factors may
have different relevance in particular cases. See Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517,
528-29 (1988). A court’s decision to transfer should consider “all relevant factors to determine
whether on balance the litigation would more conveniently proceed and the interests of justice be
better served by transfer to a different forum.” Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879.
A plaintiff’s choice of venue is not to be “lightly disturbed,” and the moving party has the
burden of establishing that the proposed transferee forum is proper and that a balancing of the
relevant considerations weighs in favor of transfer. Id.
III.

DISCUSSION
a. The Private Factors
First, the Court examines Jumara’s private factors. Plaintiff clearly prefers to litigate in

New Jersey. 3 It is also clear that Defendants prefer to litigate in Wyoming. The third Jumara
factor addresses where the claims arose. Here, the claims clearly arose from Plaintiff’s job in
Wyoming. The next factors are the convenience of the parties and the witnesses. 4 Based on the
3

Of course, the degree of deference afforded to a plaintiff’s choice of forum is reduced when the
forum has little connection with the dispute. See, e.g., Gentry v. Leading Edge Recovery
Solutions, LLC, Civ. No. 13-3398, 2014 WL 131811, at *5 (D.N.J. Jan. 10, 2014); Ramada
Worldwide, Inc. v. Bellmark Sarasota Airport, LLC, Civ. No. 05-2309, 2006 WL 1675067, at *3
(D.N.J. June 15, 2006). New Jersey has no apparent connection to this dispute, and, thus,
Plaintiff’s preference is entitled to less weight.
4

Plaintiff argues that the location of counsel and the various experts favors keeping the matter in
New Jersey. However, the convenience of the witnesses (including expert witnesses) is only
relevant to the extent the witness is unavailable in the relevant forums. Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879
(“the convenience of the witnesses—but only to the extent that the witnesses may actually be
unavailable for trial in one of the fora”). Here, it is clear that all of the retained experts will be
available in either forum. Moreover, not a single expert is from the District of New Jersey. (See
Dkt. No. 101 at 4-5 (listing the experts as coming from New York, Maryland, Georgia,
Connecticut, and Florida).) It appears that no witnesses, expert or otherwise, will be from New
Jersey. The Court also notes that convenience of counsel is not a consideration in the analysis.
3

parties remaining in this matter, there will be witnesses that are in Wyoming—e.g., Mrs.
Robinson—and several appear to be outside of the subpoena power of this Court.

The

convenience of the parties also weighs in favor of transfer to Wyoming. It would be more
convenient for Plaintiff to litigate in Wyoming because Mrs. Robinson is based there.

In

addition, as noted by Plaintiff’s counsel in various letters to this Court, it is difficult for Mrs.
Robinson to travel given her age, her health, and her family obligations. The parties agree that
the location of books and records does not impact this case.
Here, four of six private factors favor transfer, one factor favors not transferring, and one
factor is neutral.
b. The Public Factors
Next, the Court examines Jumara’s public factors. First, it does not appear that there are
any enforceability problems with a judgment in either Wyoming or New Jersey. The second
factor asks the Court to consider if there are any practical considerations making trial easy,
expeditious, or inexpensive. In this case, the District of Wyoming is much closer to the key
witnesses and parties who will have to testify at trial. The next factor asks the Court to consider
litigation congestion. It appears that the District of Wyoming is less congested than the District
of New Jersey with respect to caseload per judge. (See Dkt. No. 96 at 4 (noting that the District
of New Jersey has 546 weighted filings per judge while the District of Wyoming has 216
weighted filings per judge).)
Next the Court considers the local interests in deciding local controversies at home and
the public policies of the fora.

These are significant factors for this case.

Based on the

See Solomon v. Cont’l Am. Life Ins. Co., 472 F.2d 1043, 1047 (3d Cir. 1973) (“The convenience
of counsel is not a factor to be considered.”). In addition, Plaintiff’s counsel can be admitted pro
hac vice in the District of Wyoming, limiting any possible prejudice to Plaintiff.
4

allegations, Wyoming has a substantial interest in the outcome of cases involving asbestos
exposure that occurred in Wyoming. This matter involves a Wyoming resident exposed to
asbestos in Wyoming and, thus, should be decided in Wyoming.
Finally, the Court should consider the trial judge’s familiarity with the applicable state
law. While the Court need not decide which state’s law applies to this dispute, it appears likely
that Wyoming law would apply to this dispute. However, because the Court does not decide this
issue, this factor is neutral. Four of the public factors favor transfer and two are neutral.
The vast majority of factors favor transfer. After careful consideration, this Court finds
that transfer to the District of Wyoming would be in the interest of justice and for the
convenience of the parties and witnesses. 5
IV.

CONCLUSION & ORDER
For the reasons stated above,
IT IS on this 28th day of July, 2014,
ORDERED that Defendants’ motion regarding transfer (Dkt. Nos. 96 & 97) is

GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that this matter be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for
the District of Wyoming under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court CLOSE this case.

5

Plaintiff argues that Defendants have not shown that there is personal jurisdiction over the
parties in Wyoming. (Dkt. No. 101 at 3, n.3) However, Defendants have stipulated to personal
jurisdiction in Wyoming and have, therefore, met their burden of showing personal jurisdiction
over the parties. In addition, there is no doubt that venue would be proper in Wyoming as all of
the underlying events took place in Wyoming, and all of the remaining Defendants consent to
personal jurisdiction in Wyoming. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1391(c)(2).
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Faith S. Hochberg
Hon. Faith S. Hochberg, U.S.D.J.

6