Holder et al v. Suarez et al
Filing
24
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 18 MOTION to Transfer Case filed by Evans Delivery Company, Inc., Wilfredo Suarez. Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 3/25/15. (jam)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MICHAEL HOLDER, JR. and HEATHER
WILLIAMS, Individually and as
Administrators of the Estate of Michael
Karl Holder, deceased,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:CV-14-1789
(JUDGE CAPUTO)
Plaintiffs,
v.
WILFREDO SUAREZ, Individually, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM
Presently before me is the Motion to Transfer Venue (Doc. 18) filed by Defendants
Wilfredo Suarez, individually, Wilfredo Suarez d/b/a Suarez Trucking, LLC, Evans Delivery
Company, Inc., and Evans Delivery Company, Inc. d/b/a All Points Transportation
(collectively, “Moving Defendants”). Because Moving Defendants fail to carry their burden
of establishing that the relevant private and public interest factors weigh in favor of a
transfer to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Moving
Defendants’ motion to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) will be denied.
I. Background
Plaintiffs Michael Holder, Jr. and Heather Williams, individually and as Administrators
of the Estate of Michael K. Holder, deceased (collectively “Plaintiffs”), commenced this
wrongful death and survival action in September 2014 against Moving Defendants and
Interpool, Inc. d/b/a Trac Intermodal (“Trac”). (Am. Compl.) The action relates to an
accident that occurred on Interstate 80 in Mercer County, Pennsylvania on April 10, 2013
involving an automobile driven by Michael K. Holder and a tractor-trailer driven by Wilfredo
Suarez. Michael K. Holder died as a result of that accident.
In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Michael K. Holder was a citizen of
Michigan prior to his death and that they are therefore citizens of Michigan. (Am. Compl.,
¶ 8.) Defendants Wilfredo Suarez and Suarez Trucking, LLC are alleged to be citizens of
New Jersey. (Id. at ¶¶ 3-4). Defendants Evans Delivery Company, Inc. and Evans Delivery
Company, Inc. d/b/a All Points Transportation are alleged to be citizens of Pennsylvania
with their principal place of business in Schuylkill Haven, which is located in the Middle
District of Pennsylvania. (Id. at ¶¶ 5-6.) Lastly, Trac is alleged to be a citizen of Delaware
and New Jersey. (Id. at ¶ 7.)
On January 28, 2015, Moving Defendants filed the instant motion to transfer venue
to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. (Doc. 18.)
Moving Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ choice of forum should be given little deference
in this case because neither the decedent nor Plaintiffs are citizens of Pennsylvania. (Doc.
19, 5-6.) Moving Defendants further emphasize that the accident occurred in the Western
District of Pennsylvania and that the eyewitnesses, investigators, and medical responders
are all from that district. (Id. at 6-9.) Moving Defendants therefore conclude that the
interests of justice and convenience weigh in favor of a transfer to the Western District of
Pennsylvania.
Plaintiffs filed a timely brief in opposition to the motion to transfer venue on February
10, 2015. (Doc. 21.) Plaintiffs maintain that their choice of forum is still of paramount
importance even though the accident did not occur in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
Moreover, they emphasize that events relevant to this action involving the terminal
manager’s instructions to Wilfredo Suarez “to turn around which set in motion the events
leading to Michael Karl Holder’s death” occurred while the terminal manager was located
in this District. (Id. at 6-7.) Plaintiffs further reason that Moving Defendants fail to meet their
heavy burden to establish that the relevant interests weigh strongly in favor of transfer. (Id.
at 10.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs request that the motion to transfer be denied. (Id.) In addition,
2
Trac opposes the motion to transfer venue for the same reasons set forth by Plaintiffs. (Doc.
22.) As the time period for Moving Defendants to file a reply brief in further support of their
motion has expired, the motion to transfer venue is now ripe for disposition.
II. Discussion
Moving Defendants’ motion to transfer venue is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1404(a). Section 1404(a) 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 . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Courts have “broad discretion
to determine, on an individualized, case-by-case basis, whether convenience and fairness
considerations weigh in favor of transfer.” Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 883
(3d Cir. 1995) (citing Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 30-31, 108 S. Ct. 2239,
101 L. Ed. 2d 22 (1988)). However, “[t]he burden of establishing the need for transfer still
rests with the movant,” and “the plaintiff’s choice of venue should not be lightly disturbed.”
Id. at 879 (quotation and citation omitted). “[U]nless the balance of convenience of the
parties is strongly in favor of defendant, the plaintiff’s choice of forum should prevail.” Shutte
v. Armco Steel Corp., 431 F.2d 22, 25 (3d Cir. 1970) (quotation and citation omitted).
In considering whether to transfer an action pursuant to § 1404(a), courts are not
limited to consideration of the three factors enumerated in the statute. See Jumara, 55 F.3d
at 879. Rather, courts should “consider all relevant factors 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.” Id. (citation omitted). Both public and private interest
factors are considered in evaluating a transfer under § 1404(a). Private interest factors
include: (1) the plaintiff's choice of forum; (2) the defendant’s preferred forum; (3) where the
claim arose; (4) the convenience of the parties; (5) the convenience of the witnesses, but
only to the extent that the witnesses may be unavailable for trial in one of the fora; and (6)
3
the location of books and records, again, only to the extent that they may not be available
in one of the fora. Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879. Relevant public interest considerations include:
(1) the enforceability of the judgment; (2) practical considerations that could make the trial
easier, quicker, or less expensive; (3) court congestion; (4) local interest in the controversy;
(5) public policies of the fora; and (6) the trial judge's familiarity with the applicable state law
in diversity cases. Id. at 879-80.
Before considering the private and public interest factors, the court must determine
whether the action “might have been brought” in the proposed transferee district. See High
River Ltd. P’ship v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 353 F. Supp. 2d 487, 492 (M.D. Pa. 2005) (citation
omitted); see also E. Roof Sys., Inc. v. Simon Prop. Grp., Inc., No. 14-717, 2015 WL
679220, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 17, 2015) (before the court analyzes the public and private
factors when presented with a motion to transfer venue, the court must first “decide whether
the district to which the movant seeks to transfer the case has proper jurisdiction and venue,
i.e., could the case have been brought in the transferee district in the first instance.”). Here,
as is undisputed that the action could have been brought in the Western District of
Pennsylvania, consideration of the private and public interest factors is warranted.
A.
Private Interest Factors
The first Jumara private interest factor is Plaintiffs’ choice of forum. See Jumara, 55
F.3d at 879. As noted, a plaintiff’s choice of forum should not be disturbed lightly. See
Shutte, 431 F.2d at 25. However, “‘a plaintiff’s choice of forum is given less deference
where the plaintiff chooses a forum outside of its state of residence.’” Sinclair Cattle Co. v.
Ward, - - - F. Supp. 3d - - -, 2015 WL 268784, at *7 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 21, 2015) (quoting
Advanced Fluid Sys., Inc. v. Huber, No. 13-3087, 2014 WL 1808652, at *17 (M.D. Pa. May
7, 2014)). A plaintiff’s choice of forum is also entitled to “‘less deference when none of the
conduct complained of occurred in plaintiff’s selected forum.’” Id. (quoting Lomanno v.
4
Black, 285 F. Supp. 2d 637, 644 (E.D. Pa. 2003)).
Here, Moving Defendants note that Pennsylvania is not Plaintiffs’ home forum, and
that the accident giving rise to this action occurred outside of this District. Nevertheless,
Plaintiffs assert that operative facts relating to the terminal manager’s instructions to
Wilfredo Suarez prior to the accident took place in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. In
view of these considerations where Plaintiffs’ choice is not their home forum but some of
the operative facts occurred here, Plaintiffs’ choice is entitled to some, albeit limited,
deference. See, e.g., Kiker v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., No. 14-1445, 2014 WL 4948624,
at *4 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 1, 2014). This factor thus weighs against transfer.
The second Jumara private interest factor is Defendants’ preferred forum. See
Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879. In this case, while Moving Defendants prefer to litigate this action
in the Western District of Pennsylvania, Defendant Trac opposes the motion on the basis
that this District is a more convenient forum for all Defendants. (Doc. 22.) As such, this
factor does not weigh in favor of transfer.
The next Jumara private interest factor is the place where the claim arose. See
Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879. As noted, although Plaintiffs assert that some of the operative
events occurred in this District, the automobile accident which forms the basis of the
Complaint occurred in the Western District of Pennsylvania. Thus, the third Jumara private
interest factor weighs in favor of transfer. See, e.g., Erb v. Roadway Express, Inc., No. 0511, 2005 WL 1215955, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 19, 2005) (the fact that multi-vehicle accident
occurred in Indiana weighed in favor of transfer).
The remaining Jumara private interest factors, i.e., the convenience of the parties,
the convenience of the witnesses, and the location of books and records, are all neutral.
See Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879. Indeed, Defendants acknowledge that the convenience of the
parties as demonstrated by relative financial status and physical location is the same
5
whether the case is litigated in this District or the Western District of Pennsylvania. (Doc.
19, 8.) Defendants likewise concede that there is nothing in the record suggesting that the
witnesses in this case would be unavailable for trial in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
(Id.) Finally, the location of books and records is a relevant consideration only to the extent
that they could not be produced in the alternative forum, and neither party suggests that
these records could not be produced in either forum.
B.
Public Interest Factors
As to the Jumara public interest factors, any judgment will be equally enforceable in
this Court or the proposed transferee court. See Jumara, 55 F.3d at 789. Thus, the first
Jumara public interest factor is neutral.
Second, the public interest inquiry also involves consideration of “practical
considerations that could make the trial easy, expeditious, or inexpensive.” Jumara, 55 F.3d
at 879. Moving Defendants argue that this factor weighs in favor of transfer because they
may request a “jury site visit” of the location of the accident and other areas of the highway
which “may be beneficial in establishing Defendant Suarez’s response to the conditions on
the morning of the accident.” (Doc. 19, 8.) Thus, Moving Defendants conclude that a trial
in this District would be more expensive and less efficient if such a visit is permitted.
Although it does not appear apparent at this time that such a site visit would be beneficial
to a jury, Plaintiffs have not responded to Moving Defendants’ argument regarding the
potential for a site visit during trial. I will therefore weigh this factor very slightly in favor of
a transfer.
The third Jumara public interest factor is the “relative administrative difficulty in the
two fora resulting from court congestion.” Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879. As the parties did not
address this consideration in their submissions, this factor is neutral to the transfer analysis.
The public interest inquiry also considers the local interest in the controversy. See
6
Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879. While there is a local interest in determining local controversies
at home, “this factor is less significant where, as here, whether or not the case is
transferred, [Plaintiffs] will have a Pennsylvania forum.” Morrison v. Lindsey Lawn &
Garden, Inc., No. 13-1467, 2014 WL 831570, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 4, 2014); see also
Jumara, 55 F.3d at 882-83 (finding no “distinct public interest in resolving the claims in a
Luzerne County Court as opposed to in Philadelphia”).
The final two Jumara public interest factors are neutral. See Jumara, 55 F.3d at 87980. Specifically, the public policies of the fora are the same as both this Court and the
proposed transferee court are located in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. See, e.g.,
Simon v. Ward, 80 F. Supp. 2d 464, 471 n.12 (E.D. Pa. 2000) (no meaningful differences
between the public policies of the Eastern and Middle Districts of Pennsylvania); see also
Farkas v. Rich Coast Corp., No. 13-926, 2014 WL 550594, at *26 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 11, 2014)
(public policies of the Middle and Western District of Pennsylvania are the same). Similarly,
“because both fora are in Pennsylvania, this case presents no issues regarding the
familiarity of the judges in each District with the applicable state law.” Morrison, 2014 WL
831570, at *5.
C.
Balancing the Jumara Factors
Upon consideration of the Jumara factors, Moving Defendants’ motion to transfer this
litigation to the Western District of Pennsylvania will be denied. Here, some considerations
weigh in favor of transfer, most significantly that the accident occurred in the proposed
transferee district. Conversely, other factors, such as Plaintiffs’ preferred forum and the
preference of co-Defendant Trac to litigate in this District, weigh against transfer to the
Western District of Pennsylvania. And, as indicated, the majority of the Jumara private and
public interest factors are neutral. In these circumstances, and in view of the fact that the
burden of establishing the need for transfer rests with the movant, see Jumara, 55 F.3d at
7
879, Moving Defendants have failed to satisfy their burden of demonstrating that transfer
would be appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
III. Conclusion
For the above stated reasons, Moving Defendants’ motion to transfer venue to the
United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania will be denied.
An appropriate order follows.
March 25, 2014
Date
/s/ A. Richard Caputo
A. Richard Caputo
United States District Judge
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?