IOWA SQUARE REALTY LLC v. THOTA et al

Filing 30

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER GRANTING 29 Joint MOTION to Transfer Case to the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York filed by YASHODHARA DEVI THOTA, RAVINDER THOTA. This action hereby is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York forthwith. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case as CLOSED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy on 12/18/17. (kld)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IOWA SQUARE REALTY LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
RAVINDER THOTA and
YASHODHARA DEVI THOTA,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 17-926

United States Magistrate Judge
Cynthia Reed Eddy

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Presently pending before the Court is a “Joint Motion to Transfer Case to the Federal
District Court for the Southern District of New York.” [ECF No. 29]. For the reasons stated
herein the motion will be granted.1
Although Plaintiff has chosen initially to bring this action in this forum, it now concedes
that the Southern District of New York is a more convenient forum for this matter and joins the
Motion. Venue, personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction are proper in the Southern
District of New York, and the parties do not dispute this. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). 28 U.S.C. §
1332. We nevertheless note the following procedural history and uncontested factual
background.
On April 18, 2017, Iowa Square Realty, LLC (the “Plaintiff”), a New York limited
liability corporation, filed a Complaint in Mortgage Foreclosure against JSMN Shenango Valley
Mall LLC (“Mortgagor”), a New Jersey limited liability company, in connection with the

Under the Federal Magistrate Judges Act (“the Act), a Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction may be conferred by consent
of the parties. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Under the Act, “[u]pon consent of the parties, a full-time United States magistrate
judge . . . may conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order the entry of judgment in the
case, when specially designated to exercise such jurisdiction by the district court.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). The
parties have consented to jurisdiction by a Magistrate Judge. [ECF No. 24-2].
1

1

Mortgagor’s alleged default on its obligations under a commercial loan agreement, including
certain extension agreements (the “Loan”). That case is styled as Iowa Square Realty LLC v.
JSMN Shenango Valley Mall LLC, 2:17-cv-00497-CRE.
This matter, designated as related to the aforesaid case, was filed on July 13, 2017, and in
it Plaintiff sues Defendants, Ravinder Thota and Yashodhara Devi Thota (“Mr. and Mrs.
Thota”) alleging, inter alia, that Mr. and Mrs. Thota are liable to Plaintiff for the outstanding
principal, interest, extension fees, late charges and other sums due under the Loan pursuant to
each of two Guaranty Agreements. On November 22, 2017, Mr. and Mrs. Thota filed an
Amended Answer to the Complaint and Affirmative Defenses, the latter of which included that
the appropriate venue for this action is in a federal district court in New York.
Paradigm Credit Corp. (“Paradigm”), the original lender before assigning the Loan to
Plaintiff, is a New York corporation with its principal offices located in New York City. Plaintiff
is a New York limited liability company, and its sole member is an individual who is a resident
and citizen of the State of New York, while Mr. and Mrs. Thota are residents and citizens of the
State of New Jersey. Neither Plaintiff nor Paradigm maintain offices in the Western District of
Pennsylvania. Mortgagor Shenango Valley Mall is located in the Western District of
Pennsylvania.
On or about June 29, 2012, Mr. and Mrs. Thota executed the Guarantees in New York
and delivered the documents to Paradigm at its offices in New York City. The Guarantees state
that “any suit, action or other legal proceeding arising out of this Guaranty may be brought in the
courts of record of the State of New York or any Federal court in New York State, such courts
shall have in personam jurisdiction of Guarantor in any such suit or other legal proceeding.” The
Guarantees also contain a choice of law provision each of which provide “[t]his Guaranty shall

2

be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York without
regard to conflicts of laws principles.”
The parties stipulate that all of the potential witnesses in this action are located in New
York or New Jersey. The Court notes that counsel of record are located in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
The discretionary transfer statute, provides: “For 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). In Jumara v. State
Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 883 (3d Cir. 1995), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit set
forth a number of private and public factors that courts must balance when determining whether
to transfer the case under §1404(a). The forum selection clause affects our analysis. Atlantic
Marine Constr. Co., Inc. v. U.S. District Court, 134 S. Ct. 568, 581 (2013) (“The presence of a
valid forum-selection clause requires district courts to adjust their usual § 1404(a) analysis in
three ways.”); In re Howmedica Osteonics Corp., 867 F.3d 390, 402 (3d Cir. 2017) (“The
weighing of private and public interests under § 1404(a) changes, however, if a forum-selection
clause enters the picture.”).
The private Jumara factors include: (1) the plaintiff's forum preference as manifested in
the original choice; (2) the defendant's preference; (3) whether the claim arose elsewhere; (4) the
convenience of the parties as indicated by their relative physical and financial condition; (5) 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 (6) the location of books and records (similarly
limited to the extent that the files could not be produced in the alternative forum). Jumara, 55
F.3d at 879. Moreover, the Court must consider “all other practical problems that make trial of a

3

case easy, expeditious and inexpensive” for the parties. Atlantic Marine, 134 S. Ct. at 581 & n.
6.
Plaintiff’s forum preference as manifested by its original choice has been waived in this
case, and thus, its consent to transfer is entitled to deference and favors transfer. Moreover, the
second private Jumara factor, Defendants’ preference to litigate the action in the Southern
District of New York, weighs in favor of transfer, as does the third, whether the claim arose
elsewhere. “When the vast majority of the acts giving rise to plaintiff’s claims take place in
another forum, that weighs heavily in favor of transfer.” Hamilton v. Nochimson, 2009 WL
2195138, *3 (E.D. Pa. 2009). As set forth above, the vast majority of conduct at issue in this
case occurred in New York or New Jersey and the parties actively conducted business in the
transferee forum.
The fourth private Jumara factor, the convenience of the parties as indicated by their
relative physical and financial condition, also weighs in favor of transfer. There is no dispute
that it is both physically and financially easier for all parties to litigate2 this case in the Southern
District of New York than it is for them to proceed here in Pittsburgh, especially when
considering that all of the alleged contractual negotiations and transactions occurred in and
around the New York City. The fifth and sixth private Jumara factors, the convenience of the
witnesses and location of the books and records, likewise weighs in favor of transfer. As
represented to the court, all of the witnesses and evidence are located within 100 miles of New
York.
In addition, the Court concludes that “all other practical problems that make trial of a
case easy, expeditious and inexpensive” for the parties weigh in favor of transfer. See Atlantic

We further note, parenthetically, that all counsel are in Philadelphia. Solomon v. Cont’l Am. Life Ins. Co., 472 F.2d
1043, 1047 (3d Cir. 1973) (“[t]he convenience of counsel is not a factor to be considered” under § 1404(a)).
2

4

Marine, 134 S. Ct. at 581 & n. 6. This Court, as explained below, is operating with four District
Judge vacancies. The primary witnesses have no connection to Pittsburgh and may not be
compelled to testify in this Court at trial, the Court concludes that resolution of this case would
be easier, faster, and less expensive for the parties if transferred to the Southern District of New
York.
As a result, after balancing the private Jumara factors and the catchall “practical
considerations” factor from Atlantic Marine, the Court is in agreement that transfer is
appropriate.
The public Jumara factors include: (1) the enforceability of the judgment; (2) practical
judicial economy considerations that could make the trial easy, expeditious, or inexpensive; (3)
the relative administrative difficulty in the two fora resulting from court congestion; (4) the local
interest in deciding local controversies at home; (5) the public policies of the fora; and (6) the
familiarity of the trial judge with the applicable state law in diversity cases. Jumara, 55 F.3d. at
879-80. Like the private factors, the public Jumara factors weigh in favor of transfer.
The Court agrees New York has a greater interest than Pennsylvania in resolving this
matter and is best selected to enforcing judgment in this contract dispute involving these parties.
Thus, the first and fourth public Jumara factors weigh in favor of transfer. In addition, the
second public Jumara factor – practical judicial economy considerations that could make trial
easy, expeditious, or inexpensive – weighs in favor of transfer. See Howmedica, 867 F.3d 390,
402 n. 7 (citing Atlantic Marine, 134 S. Ct. 581 & n. 6). Although judicial economy
considerations may slightly weigh against transfer as there remains a separate case in this District
involving the Plaintiff and Mortgagor, under the circumstances, the Court concludes that this
factor is informed by the fifth private Jumara factor (the convenience of the witnesses), and also,

5

the fact that this action has been before the Court for a relatively short period of time. A transfer
will not significantly disrupt the litigation or result in a waste of judicial resources. Coppola v.
Ferrellagas, Inc., 250 F.R.D. 195, 200 (E.D. Pa. 2008) (quoting Zokaites v. Land-Cellular Corp.,
424 F.Supp.2d 824, 841 (W.D. Pa. 2006)).
With respect to the third public Jumara factor, court congestion, this Court has
acknowledged on numerous occasions that it “is presently operating with four empty District
Judge seats, out of total of ten seats, with three of those seats being vacant for” approximately
four years. See, e.g., Cypress Ins., Inc., 2017 WL 1541892, *5; see also Washington Frontier
League Baseball, LLC v Frontier Prof. Baseball, Inc., 2017 WL 565001, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Feb.
13, 2017) (noting that “[i]t is unknown when the vacancies may be filled and it is likely that
there will be another vacancy on this Court in the near future”). Thus, this third public Jumara
factor weighs in favor of transfer.
The Court already discussed the fourth public Jumara factor, the local interest in deciding
local controversies at home, in conjunction with the first public Jumara factor. As noted above,
it weighs in favor of transfer. Turner Constr. Co. v. Independence Excavating, Inc., 2016 WL
1408120, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 11, 2016). The parties in the Joint Motion do not discuss with
any particularity the fifth public Jumara factor, the respective public policies of the fora. The
Court will, therefore, assume that it is neutral. Wagner v. Olympus Am., Inc., 2016 WL 3000880,
*7 (E.D. Pa. 2016).
Finally, the Court concludes that the sixth public Jumara factor, the familiarity of the trial
judge with the applicable state law in diversity cases, favors transfer, as the Guarantees provide
that they shall be governed by the law of the state of New York.
In conclusion, the public Jumara factors, like the private Jumara factors, weigh in favor

6

of transferring the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The Parties have specifically agreed that any suit arising out of the Guarantees may be brought
therein. The Motion to Transfer is filed jointly, and will accordingly be granted.
AND NOW, to-wit, this 18th day of December, 2017, upon consideration of the Parties
Joint Motion to Transfer Venue [ECF No. 29], it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and
DECREED that said Motion is GRANTED. This action hereby is transferred to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York forthwith. The Clerk of Court shall mark
this case as CLOSED.

/s/ Cynthia Reed Eddy
Cynthia Reed Eddy
United States Magistrate Judge

cc: record counsel via CM-ECF electronic notice

7