Ellis et al v. Marriott International, Inc.
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM and ORDER granting 7 dft's Motion to Transfer; Clerk of Court is directed to TRANSFER case to the US DC of Hawaii and CLOSE. Signed by Honorable James M. Munley on 12/19/11 (sm, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GEORGE ELLIS and
DEBRA ELLIS,
Plaintiffs
:
No. 3:11cv329
:
:
(Judge Munley)
:
v.
:
:
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL
:
INC.,
:
Defendant
:
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
MEMORANDUM
Before the court is defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 7) and
plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint (Doc. 9). Defendant Marriott
International Inc. (“Marriott”) argues that the plaintiffs’ complaint should be
dismissed, or in the alternative, the case should be transferred to the
United States District Court of Hawaii pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404. The
matter is ripe for disposition and for the reasons stated below, this court
will transfer the case to the District of Hawaii.1
Background
This case arises from a personal injury sustained by Plaintiff George
Ellis at a Hawaii hotel. On February 18, 2009, George Ellis was a guest at
Marriott Kauai Resort, in Kalapaki Beach, Hawaii. (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 7 (Doc.
1)). He slipped and fell on wet tile upon entering a hotel restaurant. (Id. ¶
8). HPTMI Hawaii, Inc. owns the hotel. (Doc. 7, Ex. A ¶ 9). HPTMI Hawaii
is an independently operated entity and is not affiliated with Marriott or any
of its subsidiaries. (Id. ¶ 11). Essex House Condominium Corporation
(“Essex”) manages the day to day operations of the hotel. (Doc. 7, Ex. A ¶
Because we will transfer this case, the court will not address the
other arguments raised by Marriott in its motion to dismiss or plaintiffs’
motion to amend the complaint.
1
10). Essex is a subsidiary of Marriott. (Id. ¶ 12).
On February 18, 2011, plaintiffs filed their complaint against Marriott.
(Doc. 1). Plaintiffs George Ellis, along with his wife Debra Ellis, allege
negligence and loss of consortium. On June 13, 2011, Marriott filed a
motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint for insufficient service, insufficient
pleadings and forum non conveniens. (Doc. 7). In the alternative, Marriott
argues that this case should be transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of Hawaii pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (“Section
1404”). (Id.) On June 29, 2011, this court issued an order directing
plaintiffs to file a brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss, as the
deadline for its filing passed. (Doc. 8).
On July 9, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint to
modify the allegations against Marriott, as well as to add an additional
defendant, Essex. (Doc. 9). In plaintiffs’ brief in support of the motion,
they did not address the issues raised in Marriott’s motion to
dismiss/transfer. On July 20, 2011, Marriott filed a brief in opposition to the
motion to amend the complaint (Doc. 10), bringing the case to its present
posture.
Jurisdiction
This court has jurisdiction pursuant to the diversity jurisdiction
statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The plaintiffs are residents of Pennsylvania,
and the defendant is a corporation with its principal place of business in
Maryland. Because we are sitting in diversity, the substantive law of
Pennsylvania shall apply to the instant case. Chamberlain v. Giampapa,
210 F.3d 154, 158 (3d Cir. 2000) (citing Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S.
64, 78 (1938)).
2
Discussion
Marriott argues that the plaintiffs’ complaint should be dismissed, or
in the alternative, be transferred to the United States District Court for the
District of Hawaii. Marriott argues that the premises where the accident
occurred, the witnesses and the relevant hotel and medical records are all
located in Hawaii. Marriott contends the private and public interest factors
relevant to the consideration of transferring the case to another district
weigh in the favor of transferring the case to the District of Hawaii. We
agree.
Marriott brings this motion pursuant to 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 party making the motion
to transfer has the burden of establishing the need for transfer. Jumara v.
State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir. 1995). Courts consider a
variety of factors in determining the proper forum, and “[w]hile there is no
definitive formula or list of the factors to consider . . . courts have
considered many variants of the private and public interests protected by
the language of § 1404(a).” Id. It is within the district court’s discretion to
transfer a case to another district. In re United States, 273 F.3d 380, 387
(3d Cir. 2001).
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals articulated several factors for a
district court to consider in determining whether to transfer a case,
including both “private” and “public” interest factors. The “private interest”
factors include: plaintiff's forum preference as manifested in the original
choice; defendant's preference; whether the claim arose elsewhere; the
3
convenience of the parties as indicated by their relative physical and
financial condition; the convenience of the witnesses–but only to the extent
that the witnesses may actually be unavailable for trial in one of the fora;
and the location of books and records (similarly limited to the extent that
files could not be produced in the alternative forum). Jumara, 55 F.3d at
879 (citation omitted).
The “public interest” factors are: the enforceability of the judgment;
practical considerations that could make the trial easy, expeditious or
inexpensive; the relative administrative difficultly in the two fora resulting
from court congestion; the local interest in deciding local controversies at
home; the public policies of the fora; and the familiarity of the trial judge
with the applicable state law in diversity cases. Id. at 879-80.
Marriott, which has the burden of proof as to why transfer is
necessary, points to several factors supporting such action. Under the
private factors, Marriott argues that the plaintiffs’ forum preference should
not be given much deference because all of the relevant facts pertaining to
this cause of action arose in Hawaii. Marriott also argues that Hawaii is the
most convenient venue for this action because all of the key liability
witnesses are located in that district. Hotel staff, security, supervisors,
managers, support staff and the medical providers who treated Plaintiff
George Ellis’ injuries are all located in Hawaii. Marriott also notes that
evidence related to the personal injury, such as the investigative paperwork
and medical records, are also in Hawaii.
In support of the public interest factors, Marriott argues that as a
practical consideration, it would be less expensive and more efficient for
witnesses and documents to be transported to trial in the District of Hawaii
4
rather than to Pennsylvania. Marriott also refers the 2009 Judicial
Caseload profile for the District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania, the local interests in the Hawaii incident and the District
Court of Hawaii’s familiarity with Hawaii state law. Marriott contends that
the enforceability of judgment and the public policy factors do not weigh in
favor of either forum.
Plaintiffs did not respond to Marriott’s motion to transfer venue.
Following the submission of defendant’s motion to dismiss/transfer,
plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint and did not put forth any
arguments opposing Marriott’s motion to dismiss or transfer.
This court will grant Marriott’s motion to transfer the case. In
consideration of the following relevant factors, we find that venue would be
appropriate in the District of Hawaii. We note that without the plaintiffs’
response to the motion to transfer, we cannot definitively say that no
substantial events relevant to this case occurred in Pennsylvania. As this
case involves a personal injury, we do not know to what extent, if any,
Plaintiff George Ellis’ received treatment in Pennsylvania or whether
testimony of medical professionals located in Pennsylvania would be
relevant to the present case. We ordered plaintiffs to respond to
defendant’s motion to dismiss after they failed to file a timely brief in
opposition. (Doc. 8). Plaintiffs responded by filing a motion to amend their
complaint. Having full opportunity to contest transferring venue, we will not
speculate as to plaintiffs’ arguments for this court retaining jurisdiction.
Instead, we will weigh the private and public interest factors based on the
record before the court.
In first considering the private interest factors, we find that they favor
5
transfer. Plaintiffs’ forum preference “as manifested in the original choice”
demonstrates their desire to pursue this action in the Middle District of
Pennsylvania. Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879. Plaintiffs understandably wish to
pursue their cause of action in their home forum, as they reside in
Pennsylvania. However, Marriott indicates that the personal injury claim
“arose elsewhere,” in Hawaii. Where none of the operative facts of the
action occurred in the plaintiff's chosen forum, the choice is afforded less
weight. Hillard v. Guidant Corp, 76 F. Supp. 2d 566 (M.D. Pa. 1999) (citing
Fitzgerald v. Cent. Gulf S.S. Corp., 292 F. Supp. 847, 849 (E.D. Pa.
1968)).
Next, we consider the convenience of the parties as relative to their
physical and financial condition. We are unaware of plaintiffs’ ability to
litigate their claims in Hawaii. In their complaint, they allege that the plaintiff
sustained permanent and serious injuries. It is possible that plaintiff may
not be physically or financially capable of traveling to Hawaii for trial.
We must also consider the convenience of non-party witnesses and
the extent that they may be unavailable for trial. Marriott argues that
several witnesses are located in Hawaii, including hotel staff, security and a
medical doctor who treated Plaintiff George Ellis after his injuries. Marriott
also argues that no hotel representatives are located in Pennsylvania who
can offer any substantive testimony in this matter. We must consider the
inconvenience of these witnesses to the extent that they may actually be
unavailable for trial in Pennsylvania. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
45(e)(1) provides that witnesses may be compelled to appear unless they
reside more than one hundred (100) miles from the court at which the trial is
held. See FED. R. CIV. P. 45(e)(1). The witnesses in the present case are
6
located over one hundred (100) miles from the District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania. Therefore, the witness may be unavailable for trial,
which weighs in favor of transferring the case to Hawaii. Finally, the hotel
and the physical evidence are located in Hawaii which weighs in favor of
transfer.
Addressing the public interest factors, we again find that transfer is
warranted. First, we agree with the defendant that the enforceability of the
judgment and the public policy factors do not weigh in favor for or against
transfer. We also find no administrative difficulty in this forum. Second, the
practical considerations of the expense, efficiency and expedience of
holding the case for a personal injury sustained in Hawaii weighs in favor of
transfer. Third, the local interest in deciding a Hawaii controversy involving
a Hawaii resort weighs in favor of transfer. Finally, if Hawaii law were to
apply to the instant case, the Hawaii district court would be more familiar
with Hawaii state law.
In consideration of all of these private and public interest factors, we
find that Marriott has satisfied its burden, as movant, that the convenience
of the parties or the interest of justice would be served by transferring this
case to the District of Hawaii.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the court will grant Marriott’s motion to
transfer venue. An appropriate order follows.
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GEORGE ELLIS and
DEBRA ELLIS,
Plaintiffs
:
No. 3:11cv329
:
:
(Judge Munley)
:
v.
:
:
:
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL
:
INC.,
:
Defendant
:
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
ORDER
AND NOW, to wit, this 19th day of December 2011, the defendant’s
motion to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (Doc. 7) is hereby
GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is ordered to TRANSFER the matter to the
United States District Court of Hawaii and CLOSE the case in this
jurisdiction.
BY THE COURT:
James M. Munley
JUDGE JAMES M. MUNLEY
United States District Court
8
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?