Link v. Pennsylvania State Police et al
Filing
31
ORDER granting 17 Alternative Motion to Transfer Venue to Western District of Pennsylvania. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 6/18/2015. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (tmg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-cv-00643-FDW-DCK
BRANDOM PATRICK LINK,
Plaintiff,
vs.
PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE;
TODD A. ADAMSKI; LIBERTY
TRANSPORTATION, INC.; JOSEPH
HUTH;
MARC
PALLA;
and
LANDMARK LEASING, INC.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
Defendants.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants Landmark Leasing, Inc.
(“Landmark”), Joseph Huth, Liberty Transportation, Inc. (“Liberty”), and Marc Palla’s
(collectively “Moving Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, Or,
Alternatively, Motion to Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania. (Doc. No. 17). For the reasons that follow, the Motion to Transfer
Venue to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania is
GRANTED.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In July 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, alleging various causes of action against
Defendants that arose out of his employment with Liberty and his arrest on January 10, 2013.
1
On November 17, 2014, the Honorable Cathy Bissoon granted Plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of
that case. Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed the present action in this Court on November 19, 2014.
On May 18, 2015, the Moving Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction, or, Alternatively, to Transfer Venue. Defendants’ motion, (Doc. No. 17), has been
fully briefed by the parties and is now ripe for review.
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.” District courts have discretion to adjudicate motions for
transfer based on notions of fairness and convenience. See Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.,
487 U.S. 22, 23 (1988).
In exercising this discretion, the Court determines whether the case should be transferred
for the convenience of the parties, witnesses, and in the interest of justice. To make this
determination, this Court applies a balancing test and considers various factors in deciding
whether transfer is appropriate. Jim Crockett Promotions, Inc. v. Action Media Grp., Inc., 751 F.
Supp. 93 (W.D.N.C. 1990). The factors to be considered include:
1. The plaintiff’s initial choice of forum;
2. The residence of the parties;
3. The relative ease of access of proof;
4. The availability of compulsory process for attendance of witnesses and the
costs of obtaining attendance of willing witnesses;
5. The possibility of a view;
6. The enforceability of a judgment, if obtained;
7. The relative advantages and obstacles to a fair trial;
2
8. Other practical problems that make a trial easy, expeditious, and inexpensive;
9. The administrative difficulties of court congestion;
10. The interest in having localized controversies settled at home and the
appropriateness in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home
with state law that must govern the action; and
11. The avoidance of unnecessary problems with conflict of laws.
Id. at 96. The above factors fall into three categories: (1) factors that favor neither party, (2)
factors that favor the Defendant, and (3) factors that favor the Plaintiff. Id. at 98. The Court
must analyze the eleven factors based on quality, not merely quantity. Id. at 96.
At the outset, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s sole opposition to Moving Defendants’
motion is the contention that personal jurisdiction exists in this Court. Plaintiff argues that
Defendants’ actions relating to Plaintiff’s Abuse of Process cause of action occurred in North
Carolina, thereby showing sufficient contact by Defendants with the state of North Carolina.
Notably, Plaintiff neither addresses nor objects to Defendant’s analysis of the considered venue
factors, as discussed herein. While the failure to adequately oppose the instant motion may be
one reason to support granting Defendants the relief it seeks, the Court will nevertheless briefly
explain why, as a matter of law, Defendants’ Motion to Transfer should be granted.
A. §1404 Requirement
First and foremost, §1404(a) states that “a district court may transfer any civil action to
any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to
which all parties have consented.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1404. Thus, transfer to any given venue is
proper as long as the federal venue requirements of §1391(b) are met. Atl. Marine Const. Co. v.
U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Texas, 134 S. Ct. 568, 578 (2013).
3
Transfer of this case would not violate §1404(a) because jurisdiction is proper in the
Western District of Pennsylvania. Defendants Liberty and Landmark are incorporated in and
have their principal place of business in Pennsylvania. Both Defendants’ offices are located at
838 Croft Road, Greensburg, PA, 15601. Defendants Mark Palla and Jospeh Huth are both
residents of Pennsylvania and are each employed by a Defendant in Greensburg, PA. Thus,
transfer would not violate §1404. Additionally, Plaintiff’s original filing of the claims in the
Western District of Pennsylvania signals a consent to personal jurisdiction over him in that
district. Therefore, jurisdiction is proper in the Western District of Pennsylvania, and the §1404
requirement is met.
B. Balancing Test
The Court now looks to the applicable factors to determine whether a matter may be
transferred. Moving Defendants argue that every factor weighs in favor of, or is at least neutral
to, transferring this claim to the Western District of Pennsylvania. (Doc. No. 18).
The Court agrees with Moving Defendants that seven factors support transfer. The first
factor, “Plaintiff’s initial forum choice,” weighs in favor of transfer because Plaintiff filed an
action against Defendants in the Western District of Pennsylvania several months before Plaintiff
filed the current action here. See Century Furniture, LLC v. C & C Imports, Inc., No. 1:07-CV179, 2007 WL 2712955 at *3-4 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 14, 2007). The second factor, “residence of the
parties,” favors removal because only one party resides in North Carolina and five parties reside
in Pennsylvania. (Doc. No. 18). Additionally, the third factor, “the relative ease of access of
proof,” supports transfer because Plaintiff’s allegations center on documents filed in
Pennsylvania and Ohio. (Doc. No. 18). Furthermore, the fourth factor, “the availability of
compulsory process for attendance of witnesses and the costs of obtaining attendance of willing
4
witnesses,” also weighs in favor of transfer. Moving Defendants contend most, if not all,
potential witnesses are located in and around Pennsylvania. (Doc. No. 18). Thus, Moving
Defendants argue that the burden to subpoena documents and make personal appearances for
discovery purposes will be much greater in North Carolina. (Doc. No. 18). Likewise, the catchall eighth factor supports transfer because trial in Pennsylvania requires less total expense, for
the reasons stated above, including location of parties and witnesses. (Doc. No. 18). The ninth
factor, “administrative difficulties of court congestion,” also supports transfer because Plaintiff’s
initial action has already been heard in Pennsylvania. Transfer would reduce this Court’s
congestion without increasing congestion in Pennsylvania since the court has previously heard
this case on its merits and is familiar with the facts. (Doc. No. 18). Finally, the tenth factor, “the
interest in having localized controversies settled at home and the appropriateness in having the
trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with state law that must govern the action,”
weighs in favor of transfer because Pennsylvania does have a local interest in a case that contains
allegations of improper conduct by state officials and law enforcement. (Doc. No. 5).
The Court finds that four of the factors are neutral and favor neither party. The fifth
factor, “the possibility of a view,” is neutral because a view will not be relevant in this case.
(Doc. No. 18). Additionally, the sixth factor, “the enforceability of a judgment if obtained,” is
neutral. Even though Defendants have no property in North Carolina, this Court could require a
Pennsylvania court to enforce the judgment. (Doc. No. 18). The seventh factor, “the relative
advantages and obstacles to a fair trial,” is neutral because the Pennsylvania court is capable of
providing a fair trial, and plaintiff has provided no evidence to assume otherwise. (Doc. No. 18).
Lastly, the eleventh factor, “avoidance of unnecessary problems with conflict of laws,” favors
neither party because Moving Defendants contend that it is unlikely that North Carolina law will
5
apply and Plaintiff neither opposes that contention nor indicates which law applies. (Doc. No.
23).
The Court finds that no factors oppose transfer. Therefore, the Court finds that transfer
of this matter to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania is
appropriate under §1404 and controlling law.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Transfer to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania is GRANTED. By so, the Court finds that the
question of personal jurisdiction is rendered MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: June 18, 2015
6
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?