COOPER ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. v. TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA
Filing
12
OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Joel A. Pisano on 6/4/2012. (eaj)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
____________________________________
:
COOPER ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO.,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
Civil Action No. 12-0359 (JAP)
v.
:
:
TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND
:
OPINION
SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA,
:
:
Defendant.
:
___________________________________ :
PISANO, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Travelers Casualty and Surety
Company of America’s (“Travelers”) motion to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Plaintiff Cooper Electric Supply Co. (“Cooper”) opposes the motion. For the reasons set forth
below, the Court will deny Travelers’ motion.
On December 2, 2011, Cooper filed this action in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Middlesex County. In its Complaint, Cooper seeks payment from Travelers in connection with
electrical materials Cooper furnished to Kullman Building Corporation (“Kullman”) for use on a
public construction project in Cheyney, Pennsylvania. Cooper alleges that Travelers is liable for
the payment under a contract bond Travelers issued from its Edison, New Jersey office.
On January 19, 2012, Travelers removed the action from the Superior Court of New
Jersey to this Court. Thereafter, on January 25, 2012, it filed the instant motion to transfer venue
to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In support of its
motion, Travelers’ argues that transfer is appropriate because, inter alia, the bond on which
Cooper’s claim is based incorporates a provision that requires the application of Pennsylvania
law; the relevant construction project is located in Pennsylvania and therefore several of the
pertinent documents and witnesses are located there; Pennsylvania has a strong interest in
adjudicating disputes that arise under its Public Works Contractor’s Bond Law; and at least two
related payment bond claims are or will be pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Travelers’ motion is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which provides: “[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
determination whether to transfer a case is in the discretion of the district court. See Jumara v.
State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 878 (3d Cir. 1995). 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 proper1 and that a balancing of the relevant considerations weighs in favor of
transfer. See id. at 879.
Although the Third Circuit has emphasized that there “is no definitive formula or list of
the factors to consider” when deciding a motion to transfer, it has set forth a variety of relevant
private and public interests that courts can examine in addition to those explicitly listed in §
1404(a). See Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879. The relevant private interests include: (1) plaintiff’s forum
preference; (2) defendant’s forum preference; (3) whether the claim arose elsewhere; (4) the
convenience of the parties; (5) the convenience of witnesses; and (6) the location of sources of
proof. See id. The relevant 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
1
The parties do not dispute that the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is a “district in which this action might have
been brought” pursuant to § 1404.
2
interest in deciding local disputes 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. See id.
Here, having considered both parties’ arguments and the factors set forth above, the
Court concludes that Travelers has not met its burden of establishing that a balancing of the
relevant interests weighs in favor of transfer. See id. at 879. As a threshold matter, Cooper’s
choice of New Jersey as the forum for this action is accorded significant weight. Indeed, “courts
normally defer to a plaintiff’s choice of forum,” particularly where, as here, relevant acts giving
rise to the claim arose in that forum. Id. at 880. Specifically, the electrical materials at issue in
this case were purchased and sold in New Jersey by two New Jersey corporations, Cooper and
Kullman. See Mezynski Cert. ¶¶ 3-5. Moreover, although the bond that forms the basis for
Cooper’s claim relates to a construction project in Cheyney, Pennsylvania, it was issued from
Travelers’ Edison, New Jersey office and lists Structure Tone, Inc., a construction management
company located in Lyndhurst, New Jersey, as principal. See Def.’s Br. Ex. 3. As a result, it
appears that a majority of both the witnesses in this case and the sources of proof relevant to
Cooper’s claim are located in New Jersey.
Similarly, in light of the above, the practical considerations pertinent to the transfer
determination provide support for Cooper’s position; to the extent that Travelers may be
inconvenienced by having to litigate this case in New Jersey,2 a transfer to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania “would merely switch the inconvenience from defendant to plaintiff.” Market
Transition Facility of N.J. v. Twena, 941 F. Supp. 462, 467 (D.N.J. 1996)(“a court will not grant
2
The Court notes that Pennsylvania is located just across the Delaware River from New Jersey. Thus, Travelers’
arguments as to the interests of judicial economy and the inconvenience of litigating in this Court carry particularly
little force. See Market Transition, 941 F. Supp. at 468 (emphasizing “negligible difference in terms of
inconvenience” in light of close proximity between federal courthouses in Newark and Brooklyn); Jumara, 55 F.3d
at 880. Furthermore, although, as Travelers emphasizes, Cooper’s claim may be governed by Pennsylvania law—
specifically, the Pennsylvania Public Works Contractor’s Bond Law—the Court is confident that it is fully capable
of adjudicating this matter in accordance with the applicable law.
3
a transfer simply because the transferee court is more convenient for the defendants.”).
Therefore, having weighed the relevant private and public interests, the Court concludes that
Travelers has fallen short of establishing that “the proposed alternative forum is not only
adequate, but also more appropriate than the present forum.” Hoffer v. Infospace.com, Inc., 102
F. Supp. 2d 556, 572 (D.N.J. 2000); Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879. Accordingly, Travelers’ motion to
transfer venue is denied. An appropriate Order follows.
/s/ JOEL A. PISANO
United States District Judge
Dated: June 4, 2012
4
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?