Grafton v. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING Jefferson's motion to transfer venue 8 , directing Clrk of Ct to TRANSFER this action to USDC for District of Minnesota & directing Clrk of Ct to CLOSE file. (See memo & order for coomplete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 10/11/11. (ki)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WILLIAM GRAFTON
Plaintiff
v.
JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS,
LLC
Defendant
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV-1006
(Judge Conner)
MEMORANDUM
Presently before the court is a Motion to Transfer Venue filed by defendant
Jefferson Capital Systems (“Jefferson”) on July 25, 2011. (Doc. 8). Jefferson moves
this court to transfer the above-captioned action to the United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota. For the reasons that follow, the court will grant the
motion.
I.
Background
Plaintiff William Grafton (“Grafton”) commenced this action on May 25, 2011,
alleging that Jefferson violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §
1692 (“FDCPA”), the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227
(“TCPA”), and Maryland Commercial Title 14, Subtitle 2. (Doc. 1, at 5-8). The
FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from engaging in unfair or unconscionable means
to collect or attempt to collect debts. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. Grafton is a Maryland
resident. (Id. at 2). Jefferson is a debt collector maintaining offices in both Atlanta,
Georgia and St. Cloud, Minnesota. (Doc. 8-1, at 2). Jefferson also maintains a
registered agent authorized to accept service of process in Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania. (Id.) On July 25, 2011, Jefferson filed the instant motion (Doc. 8),
requesting a transfer of venue to the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota. Grafton filed a brief in opposition on August 8, 2011. (Doc. 10). The
motion has been fully briefed and is now ripe for disposition.
II.
Standard of Review
Section 1404 of the United States Code provides for the transfer of an action
to a more convenient forum. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In considering a motion to
transfer a civil action to another federal district, the applicable legal standard is
“the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.” Id. In
evaluating a motion to transfer venue, the court must determine whether the action
could have been brought in the transferee forum, and, if so, the court must balance
several private and public interest factors weighing in favor of or against transfer.
See High River Ltd. P’ship v. Mylan Labs, Inc., 353 F. Supp.2d 487, 492 (M.D. Pa.
2005); Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir. 1995). Consideration
of “all relevant factors” is needed 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 (quoting 15 CHARLES ALAN
WRIGHT ET AL ., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3847 (2d ed. 1986)).
The court considers the following private interest factors: (1) the plaintiff’s
choice of forum; (2) the defendant’s forum preference; (3) whether the claim arose
elsewhere; (4) convenience of the parties as indicated by their physical and financial
2
condition; (5) convenience of the witnesses (to the extent that they may be
unavailable for trial in one of the fora); and (6) location of the evidence. Id. The
relevant public interest factors are: (1) the enforceability of the judgment; (2)
practical considerations in conducting trial; (3) relative administrative difficulty in
the two fora resulting from court congestion; and (4) local interest in deciding local
controversies at home. Id. at 879-80.
A court is vested with “broad discretion to determine, on an individualized,
case-by-case basis, whether convenience and fairness considerations weigh in favor
of transfer.” Id. at 883 (citing Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 30-31
(1988)). As a general rule, a plaintiff’s choice of forum is a “paramount
consideration” in determining a request to transfer, and “should not be lightly
disturbed in any determination of a transfer request.” Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp.,
431 F.2d 22, 25 (3d Cir. 1970) (quoting Ungrund v. Cunningham Brothers, Inc., 300
F. Supp. 270, 272 (S.D. Ill. 1969)).
III.
Discussion
The initial inquiry is whether this action could have been brought in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Jefferson argues that
venue would be appropriate in the District of Minnesota, where it maintains one of
its two offices and where the majority of potential witnesses in this case are located.
(Doc. 8-1, at 2). Grafton does not dispute this argument and venue is clearly proper
in the District of Minnesota pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and(2). See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391 (stating that venue is proper in “a judicial district where any defendant
3
resides, if all defendants reside in the same state,” and in “a judicial district in
which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims
occurred”).
The court must therefore determine whether, after balancing the factors
pursuant to § 1404(a), a transfer of this action to the District of Minnesota is
warranted. The moving party bears the burden of showing that “all relevant things
considered, the case would be better off transferred to another district.” In re
United States, 273 F.3d 380, 388 (3d Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). Thus, Jefferson
must demonstrate that the District of Minnesota is a more convenient forum.
Jefferson argues that several private interest factors weigh in favor of
transferring this litigation to Minnesota. Specifically, Jefferson alleges that there is
no connection between this action and the Middle District of Pennsylvania, save for
the fact that Jefferson maintains a registered agent in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.1
(Doc. 8-1, at 2). Grafton chose to bring this action in the Middle District of
Pennsylvania, and ordinarily this choice of forum is given great weight in deciding a
motion to transfer. However, courts give less deference to the plaintiff when he or
she chooses a forum outside of his or her state of residence. See Wellpet, LLC v.
Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc., No. 1:09-CV-1556, 2009 WL 5111790, at *2 (M.D. Pa.
1
The court notes that Grafton’s counsel resides in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, located within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This is the only
other discernable connection between Grafton and Pennsylvania. However, the
convenience of counsel is not relevant to the court’s consideration of a motion to
transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404. See Solomon v. Cont’l Am. Life Ins. Co., 472
F.2d 1043, 1047 (3d Cir. 1973).
4
Dec. 16, 2009) (citing EVCO Tech. & Devel. Co. v. Precision Shooting Equip., Inc.,
379 F. Supp.2d 728, 730 (E.D. Pa. 2005)). As a resident of Maryland, Grafton’s choice
of forum will be given some consideration, but the choice is not dispositive, nor is it
entitled to great deference. See id.
Jefferson’s preference of litigating in Minnesota weighs in favor of transfer.
Jefferson avers that the District of Minnesota, a district in which Jefferson
maintains one of its two offices, and where potential witnesses with knowledge of
the dispute reside, is a more convenient venue. (Id. at 5.) Grafton argues that the
Middle District of Pennsylvania is a proper venue because Jefferson maintains a
registered office in this district. (Doc. 10, at 3.) That this district is a proper venue,
however, does not appear to outweigh the factors favoring a transfer to Minnesota,
which would also be a proper venue. In Matt v. Baxter Healthcare Corporation, 74
F. Supp.2d 467 (E.D. Pa. 1999), the defendants moved to transfer venue from the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the Northern District of Illinois, based on the
fact that the defendants resided in that district, and a substantial part of the
occurrences giving rise to the claim occurred in that district. Id. at 468. Plaintiff, a
resident of Pittsburgh, chose to bring the action in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, where defendant maintained a registered office. Id. at 469. The
court concluded, however, that factors such as the convenience of the parties and
convenience of the witnesses militated toward transferring venue to the Northern
District of Illinois. Id. at 470; see also Johnson v. Gen. Dynamics Info. Tech., 675 F.
5
Supp.2d 236, 241-42 (D.N.H. 2009) (transferring action, even though defendant had
registered agent in original venue).
The facts of this case are substantially similar. Grafton resides in Maryland,
and Jefferson has its place of business in St. Cloud, Minnesota. Neither party is a
citizen of Pennsylvania. The alleged conduct giving rise to the instant action
occurred in Minnesota, the origin of the collection activity. (Doc. 8-1, at 2). Save for
Grafton, each of the witnesses with knowledge of the dispute resides in Minnesota,
and the records regarding Grafton’s claims are located in Minnesota. (Id.; see also
Doc. 8-2). Thus, the private interest factors militate in favor of transfer.
Various public interest factors also weigh in favor of transfer of this action to
the District of Minnesota. It bears reiterating that none of the actionable conduct
took place in Pennsylvania. Despite the fact that Grafton resides in Maryland, he
chose not to bring the action in that federal district. Furthermore, the judges of the
Middle District of Pennsylvania face a full docket with vacancies in three of six
seats on the court. Finally, the District of Minnesota is the forum with a stronger
connection to the events giving rise to this litigation, and therefore, Minnesota has a
more significant public interest in litigating the dispute. Accordingly, the above
public factors weigh in favor of transfer to the District of Minnesota.
6
IV.
Conclusion
Upon consideration of the private and public interest factors noted above, the
court finds that the action could have been properly brought in the District of
Minnesota, and that the District of Minnesota is a more convenient forum. The
interests of justice are better served by a transfer. The court will therefore grant
Jefferson’s motion (Doc. 8) to transfer venue.
S/ Christopher C. Conner
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
United States District Judge
Dated:
October 11, 2011
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WILLIAM GRAFTON
Plaintiff
v.
JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS,
LLC
Defendant
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV-01006
(Judge Conner)
ORDER
AND NOW, this 11th day of October, 2011, upon consideration of the motion
(Doc. 8) to transfer venue, filed by Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, and for the
reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.
The motion (Doc. 8) to transfer venue is GRANTED.
2.
The Clerk of the Court shall TRANSFER this action to the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
3.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE the file on this case.
S/ Christopher C. Conner
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
United States District Judge
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?