Rosen et al v. Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company LLC et al
Filing
19
OPINION AND ORDER re: 14 MOTION to Dismiss or Transfer filed by Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company LLC, Marriot International, Inc. Weighing the factors set forth above, the Court in its discretion determines that Defendants have me t their burden of demonstrating by "clear and convincing evidence" that transfer is appropriate. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendants' motion to transfer is granted, and that this action shall be transferred to the District of Puerto Rico. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion pending at docket entry 14. (Signed by Judge Richard J. Sullivan on 12/31/2014) (mro)
E . - =·I USDS SDNY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DOCU~/fENT
Plaintiffs,
I!
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
II
DOr':ft..':
1,
~
ANYA ROSEN, as parent and natural
guardian of infant plaintiff Joseph Vincent
Cannariato, et uno,
.::-:---.=:=:.... ·-
·-------Ii
DATE FILED:
t
5" aot~
•
---_q1
No. 14-cv-1385 (RJS)
OPINION AND ORDER
-v-
RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL CO. LLC and
MARRIOT INT'L, INC.,
Defendants.
RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, District Judge:
Now before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss this case pursuant to the doctrine
of forum non conveniens, or, alternatively, to transfer it to the District of Puerto Rico pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motion to dismiss for
forum non conveniens, but grants the motion to transfer.
I. BACKGROUND 1
On February 14, 2013, Infant Plaintiff accompanied his father, nanny, and mother, who
appears here as Plaintiffs Guardian, on a family vacation in San Juan, Puerto Rico. (Compl.
~
7).
The family stayed at the Ritz-Carlton, San Juan in adjacent rooms, with Guardian Plaintiff and the
father in one room, and Infant Plaintiff and his nanny in the other. (Compl.
~~
9-10.) On February
16, 2013, Infant Plaintiff was badly burned when a cup of hot water fell on him from the coffee
maker contained in his hotel room. (Compl. ~~ 13-17 .) Infant Plaintiff sustained severe bums that
1
For the purposes of this Opinion and Order, the Court accepts all allegations in the Complaint
(Doc. No. 2 ("Compl.")) as true.
were treated on site at the hotel, at the burn unit of a local San Juan hospital, and at the burn center
of a New York City hospital. (Compl.
iii! 20-27.)
On March 3, 2014, upon returning from the family vacation, Guardian Plaintiff brought
suit against Defendants on behalf of Infant Plaintiff for negligence and negligent infliction of
emotional distress. (Compl.
iii! 30-40.)
The Court held a conference on July 10, 2014, at which
the parties discussed the Court's prior opinion in Wechsler v. Four Seasons Hotel Ltd., No. 13CV-8971(RJS),2014 WL 2604109 (S.D.N.Y. June 10, 2014). On July 24, 2014, Defendants filed
their motion to dismiss or transfer. (Doc. No. 14 ("Mem.").) Plaintiffs filed their opposition on
August 15, 2014 (Doc. No. 16 ("Opp.")), and Defendants filed their reply on August 22, 2014
(Doc. No. 18 ("Rep.")).
II. DISCUSSION
Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a court with legal authority to hear a case
may refuse to do so if a more appropriate forum exists elsewhere. See, e.g., Wiwa v. Royal Dutch
Petrol. Co., 226 F .3d 88, 100 (2d Cir. 2000). However, as the Supreme Court has explained,
"Congress has codified the doctrine [of forum non conveniens] and has provided for transfer, rather
than dismissal, when a sister federal court is the more convenient place for trial of the action."
Sinochem Int'! Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Int'! Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430 (2007). Here, the
alternative forum is the District of Puerto Rico, a "sister federal court," and therefore the doctrine
of forum non conveniens is inapplicable. Accordingly, Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to
forum non conveniens is denied.
Nevertheless, "a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division
where it might have been brought ... [f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest
of justice .... " 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). For a motion to transfer venue, the burden is on the moving
2
party to show by "clear and convincing evidence" that transfer is proper. CY!, Inc. v. Ja-Ru, Inc.,
913 F. Supp. 2d 16, 18 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (citing NY Marine & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Lafarge N Am.
Inc., 599 F.3d 102, 112 (2d Cir. 2010)).
As the statute makes clear, Defendants must first show that the instant action could have
been brought originally in the transferee district. Whitehaus Collection v. Barclays Prods., Ltd.,
No. 11-CV-217 (LBS), 2011WL4036097, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2011). Under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391(b)(2), venue may be laid in any judicial district "in which a substantial portion of the events
or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred." Id. In this case, the alleged accident occurred at
the Ritz-Carlton hotel in San Juan, Puerto Rico, so this action could have been brought in the
District of Puerto Rico. (Compl.
~
7.)
Once that threshold question is resolved, the Court must also take into account the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interest of justice. "District courts have broad
discretion" in making these determinations. D.H. Blair & Co., Inc. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95,
106 (2d Cir. 2006). However, courts are generally guided by several factors, including "(I) the
plaintiff's choice of forum, (2) the convenience of witnesses, (3) the location ofrelevant documents
and relative ease of access to sources of proof, (4) the convenience of parties, (5) the locus of
operative facts, (6) the availability of process to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses, and
(7) the relative means of the parties." NY Marine & Gen. Ins. 599 F .3d at 112 (internal citation
omitted). Alongside these factors, courts in this district routinely consider judicial economy, the
interest of justice, and "the comparative familiarity of each district with the governing law." CY!,
Inc., 913 F. Supp. 2d at 19 (citing Tomjai Enters., Corp. v. Lab. Pharmaplus US.A., Inc., No. 12CV-3729 (RWS), 2012 WL 3104891, at *5-7 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2012)). The Court will address
each of these factors in tum.
3
A. Plaintiffs' Choice of Forum
A "plaintiff's choice of forum is presumptively entitled to substantial deference." Gross
v. British Broad. Corp., 386 F.3d 224, 230 (2d Cir. 2004). However, the weight afforded to a
plaintiffs choice is diminished "where the operative facts lack a meaningful connection to the
[chosen] forum." GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, SA., v. Hospira Worldwide, Inc., No. 13-CV1395 (PKC), 2013 WL 2244315, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2013).
Here, the locus of operative facts is clearly San Juan- not New York. The coffee maker
and hotel room in question are in Puerto Rico, the alleged accident took place in Puerto Rico, the
immediate medical response was in Puerto Rico, and the first week of medical treatment was also
in Puerto Rico. The only aspect of this case that took place in New York was the ultimate medical
treatment that Infant Plaintiff received. As Judge Sweet held in a case involving similar facts, such
a scenario entitles Plaintiffs' choice of forum to limited weight. Delarosa v. Holiday Inn, No. 99CV-2873 (RWS), 2000 WL 648615, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2000) (affording "relatively little
weight" to plaintiff's choice of New York for her forum when the plaintiff suffered an injury at a
hotel in North Carolina and underwent initial medical treatment in North Carolina, but later
received additional medical treatment in New York). Accordingly, Plaintiff's choice of forum is
not entitled to substantial deference.
B. Convenience of Witnesses
"Courts typically regard the convenience of witnesses as the most important factor in
considering a § 1404(a) motion to transfer." Whitehaus Collection, 2011 WL 4036097, at *4
(quoting Herbert Ltd. P'ship v. Elec. Arts Inc., 325 F. Supp. 2d 282, 286 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)).
Furthermore, the convenience of non-party witnesses is weighted more heavily than that of party
witnesses. See Indian Harbor Ins. Co. v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., 419 F. Supp. 2d 395, 402
4
(S.D.N.Y. 2005) (citing Royal & Sunalliance v. British Airways, 167 F. Supp. 2d 573, 577
(S.D.N.Y. 2001)). Finally, the party moving for transfer "must provide the court with a detailed
list of probable witnesses who will be inconvenienced if required to testify in the current forum."
Kiss My Face Corp. v. Bunting, No. 02-CV-2645 (RCC), 2003 WL 22244587, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.
Sept. 30, 2003).
This factor favors transferring the case to Puerto Rico. The majority ofrelevant witnesses
is located and subject to jurisdiction in Puerto Rico. Plaintiffs list six New York-based witnesses
in their Rule 26 disclosure, with two of those being Plaintiffs themselves. Defendants list nine
Puerto Rico-based witnesses in their Rule 26 disclosure and an additional two Puerto Rico-based
witnesses in their affidavit supporting their motion for transfer. Of Defendants' proposed Puerto
Rico-based witnesses, five are local police officers or medical workers and the remainder are nonparty Ritz-Carlton staff. While a Court should not just tally the various witnesses and their
locations - the materiality of the proposed testimony is what matters most - it is important to note
the disparity. See Herbert Ltd. P 'ship, 325 F. Supp. 2d at 286.
Plaintiffs respond that the only two eyewitnesses to the actual accident - the father and
nanny of Infant Plaintiff - are New York residents. Yet Plaintiffs also argue that eyewitness
testimony will not be particularly important in this matter, since the only disputed issues are likely
to be negligence and notice, which will be addressed largely by expert testimony and
interrogatories. (Opp. at 8.) Thus, the Court finds that the disparity in the number of witnesses,
and particularly non-party witnesses located in Puerto Rico, favors transfer of this action.
C. Location of Relevant Documents and Ease of Access to Sources of Proof
"The location of relevant documents is largely a neutral factor in today's world of faxing,
scanning, and emailing documents." Am. Steamship Owners Mut. Prat. & Indem. Ass 'n, Inc. v.
5
Lafarge N Am., Inc., 474 F. Supp. 2d 474, 484 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). Because nothing in the parties'
submissions indicates that production of documents would pose an obstacle to adjudication in
either New York or Puerto Rico, the Court determines that this factor is neutral as to transfer.
D. Convenience of Parties
Unsurprisingly, "[t]he convenience of the parties is often connected to the convenience of
their respective witnesses." ESPN, Inc. v. Quiksilver, Inc., 581 F. Supp. 2d 542, 549-50 (S.D.N.Y.
2008). Therefore, while simply shifting inconvenience from one party to another does not support
transfer, it is clear that when the convenience of witnesses weighs in one direction, the convenience
of the parties will likely weigh in that direction as well. See id. at 550 (citing Dwyer v. General
Motors Corp., 853 F. Supp. 690, 693 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)). As has been discussed, the convenience
of the witnesses favors Puerto Rico, so this factor likewise favors transfer to that District.
Nevertheless, the fact that Defendants are corporations with significant operations in New York,
coupled with the fact that Plaintiffs are individuals who reside in New York, with no discernible
ties to Puerto Rico, suggests that this factor only slightly favors transfer.
E. Locus of Operative Facts
"The location of operative facts is a primary factor in determining a§ 1404(a) motion to
transfer." Whitehaus Collection, 2011 WL 4036097, at *2 (citing Billing v. Commerce One, Inc.,
186 F. Supp. 2d 375, 377 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)). Here, it is clear that the locus of operative facts is
San Juan, Puerto Rico. The alleged accident took place in San Juan, the instruments of the accident
are located in San Juan, the emergency medical care took place in San Juan, and the first week of
medical treatment took place in a San Juan hospital. (Mem. at 4.) The only factual connection
with New York is the fact that Infant Plaintiff obtained further medical treatment in New York.
As noted above, other courts in this district have found such a situation to present "a very
6
attenuated link" to New York. Delarosa, 2000 WL 648615, at *4 (citing Hernandez v. Graebel
Van Lines, 761 F. Supp. 983, 988 (E.D.N.Y. 1991)) (transferring a case involving a plaintiff who
suffered a personal injury at a hotel in North Carolina because the instruments of the accident,
most witnesses, and the initial medical treatment were all in North Carolina); see also Donde v.
Romano, 2010 WL 3173321, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2010) (holding that the operative facts
occurred in New Jersey because that is where the accident took place despite the fact that plaintiff
received some medical treatment in New York). Accordingly, the Court determines that this factor
weighs heavily in favor of transferring the case to Puerto Rico.
F. Availability of Process to Compel the Attendance of Unwilling Witnesses
Even if a party's witnesses are beyond the subpoena power of the Court, if neither party
asserts that a witness will be unwilling to testify voluntarily, the availability of process to compel
testimony is irrelevant to the transfer analysis. See Pace v. Quintanilla, No. 13-CV-91(RJS),2013
WL 5405563, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2013) (citing Whitehaus Collection, 2011 WL 4036097,
at *5). Because neither party here has argued that any witnesses will not testify in New York or
Puerto Rico voluntarily, this factor is neutral as to the § 1404(a) analysis.
G. Relative Means of the Parties
"A party argumg against or for transfer because of inadequate means must offer
documentation to show that transfer (or the lack thereof) would be unduly burdensome to his
finances." MasterCard Int'l, Inc. v. Lexcel Solutions, Inc., No. 03-CV-7157 (WHP), 2004 WL
1368299, (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2004) (quotation marks and citation omitted). While Plaintiffs argue
that Defendants, as major corporations, "unquestionably have greater resources than the Plaintiffs
and are better suited to endure any costs and/or inconvenience," (Opp. at 13 ), Plaintiffs have
provided no documentation to suggest that transfer would be "unduly burdensome" on their
7
finances. To the contrary, the facts alleged in the Complaint demonstrate Plaintiffs' financial
ability to travel to Puerto Rico and to stay at the Ritz-Carlton while on vacation. Accordingly, the
Court determines that this factor is also neutral.
H. Comparative Familiarity of Each District with the Governing Law
"Familiarity with the governing law as a factor in determining transfer of venue 1s
'generally given little weight in federal courts."' MASTR Asset Backed Sec. Trust 2007-WMCJ,
ex rel. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n v. WMC Mort. LLC, 880 F. Supp. 2d 418, 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)
(quoting Am. Eagle Outfitters, Inc v. Ta/a Bros. Corp., 457 F. Supp. 2d 474, 479 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)).
But when the suit is premised on state law claims, this factor becomes more important. See, e.g.,
NBA Properties, Inc. v. Salvino, Inc., No. 99-CV-11799 (AGS), 2000 WL 323257, at *9 (S.D.N.Y.
Mar. 27, 2000). Here, although Plaintiffs' negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress
claims are premised on state law, they are common causes of action such that courts in Puerto Rico
do not have a significant familiarity advantage over this Court. Therefore, the Court determines
that this relatively unimportant factor is also neutral.
I. Judicial Economy and Interest of Justice
While not part of the formal§ 1404(a) inquiry, courts often consider judicial economy and
the interest of justice when weighing a transfer motion. See Pace, 2013 WL 5405563, at *5 (citing
Goggins v. Alliance Capital Mgmt., L.P., 279 F. Supp. 2d 228, 234 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)). The usual
concern that transferring a case would undermine judicial economy - because it would require a
new court to familiarize itself with the facts of the case - is not particularly present here. The only
matter the parties have briefed before this Court is Defendants' motion to transfer. Therefore, it
would not materially delay resolution of the case to transfer it to Puerto Rico.
8
Transferring the case would, however, further the interest of justice. The District of Puerto
Rico is clearly the forum with the most meaningful connection to the facts underlying this case.
The locus of operative facts and convenience of witnesses - particularly non-party witnesses weigh strongly in favor of transfer, and the limited deference afforded to Plaintiffs' choice of forum
does not overcome that weight. When the "natural focus of [the] litigation is [the transferee
district],'' granting transfer furthers the interest of justice. Delarosa, 2000 WL 648615, at *5.
Consequently, the interest of justice weighs in favor of transfer.
IV. CONCLUSION
Weighing the factors set forth above, the Court in its discretion determines that Defendants
have met their burden of demonstrating by ··clear and convincing evidence'' that transfer is
appropriate. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendants' motion to transfer is
granted, and that this action shall be transferred to the District of Puerto Rico. The Clerk of the
Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion pending at docket entry 14.
SO ORDERED.
DATED:
December 31, 2014
New York, New York
R
UNITED STA TES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
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?