OVIEDO v. BAUTISTA-LOPEZ et al
Filing
3
OPINION. Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 11/2/2011. (gxh)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
JORGE BAUTISTA-LOPEZ, et al., :
:
Defendants.
:
:
ELIA OVIEDO,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-6330 (MLC)
O P I N I O N
THE PLAINTIFF brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
(“Section”) 1332 to recover damages for personal injuries
(“Injuries”) sustained in a motor vehicle accident (“Accident”)
in Ellensburg, Washington, which is located in Kittitas County.
(Dkt. entry no. 1, Compl. at 2.)1
The plaintiff names as
defendants: (1) Jorge Bautista-Lopez, who is alleged to be a
citizen of Kent, Washington, which is located in King County, and
(2) Cecilio Cuamani Tula, who is alleged to be a citizen of
Orting, Washington, which is located in Pierce County.
(Id.)
The plaintiff alleges that Bautista-Lopez “operated said vehicle
on said occasion in violation of the motor vehicle laws of the
State of Washington”.
(Id. at 3.)
KING COUNTY, where Bautista-Lopez lives, and Pierce County,
where Tula lives, are served by the United States District Court
1
The plaintiff designates the first two pages of the
Complaint as page “1”. The Court will rely on the page
designations imposed on the docket pursuant to the Electronic
Case Filing System.
for the Western District of Washington.
But Kittitas County,
where the accident occurred, is served by the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.
THE COURT has broad discretion under Section 1404 to transfer
an action to a district where the action might have been more
properly brought.
See Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d
873, 875, 877 n.3, 883 (3d Cir. 1995).
THE ACTION would have been more properly brought in the
Eastern District of Washington, as (1) the Accident occurred, and
the Injuries arose, therein, (2) the federal district court there
will be more familiar with the Accident site, (3) the defendants
and many of the non-party witnesses probably live and work
nearby, (4) evidence will be found there or nearby, and (5)
controlling Washington law will be easily applied there.
See
Lauria v. Mandalay Corp., No. 07-817, 2008 WL 3887608, at *5
(D.N.J. Aug. 18, 2008) (transferring action to Nevada even though
plaintiff was citizen of and medically treated in New Jersey, as
(1) claim arose in Nevada, (2) Nevada has local interest in
determining local negligence issue, (3) Nevada court is more
familiar with Nevada law, and (4) relevant evidence in Nevada);
Decker v. Marriott Hotel Servs., No. 06-3191, 2007 WL 1630097, at
*1 (E.D. Pa. June 4, 2007) (transferring action to Virginia even
though plaintiff was Pennsylvania citizen, as defendant ran
facility at issue and accident occurred in Virginia); see also In
2
re Christian, 403 Fed.Appx. 651, 652 (3d Cir. 2010) (denying
petition for writ of mandamus to compel Pennsylvania district
court to vacate order transferring case to Virginia district
court, as, inter alia, (1) not all of the defendants resided in
Pennsylvania, and (2) substantial part of events at issue arose
in Virginia).
THE PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL has its office in New Jersey.
(Compl. at 1.)
However, the convenience of counsel is not a
consideration as to the issue of proper venue.
See Solomon v.
Cont’l Am. Life Ins. Co., 472 F.2d 1043, 1047 (3d Cir. 1973).
THE COURT thus will transfer the action to the Eastern
District of Washington.
For good cause appearing, the Court will
issue an appropriate order.
s/ Mary L. Cooper
MARY L. COOPER
United States District Judge
Dated:
November 2, 2011
3
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?