Jungman v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 1/18/11. 1/18/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(fdc) [Transferred from Pennsylvania Eastern on 2/17/2011.]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RICHARD JUNGMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION
No. 10-4590
MEMORANDUM
Schiller, J.
January 18, 2010
Plaintiff Richard Jungman brings claims under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act for
repetitive stress injuries he attributes to his career with freight railroad CSX Transportation, Inc.
Presently before the Court is the railroad’s motion to transfer. The Court will grant this motion for
the reasons stated below.
I.
BACKGROUND
Richard Jungman has worked for CSX Transportation (“CSX”) as a carman since 1974.
(Mot. to Transfer Venue Ex. D [Affidavit of Kenneth Ensor] ¶ 3.). He alleges that he suffers
from osteoarthritis, tendinitis, bursitis and carpal tunnel syndrome due to CSX’s failure to
provide safe working conditions. (Compl. ¶ 10.) A resident of Tennessee, Jungman worked for
CSX in Nashville. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 8.) He has never worked in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
(Mot. to Transfer Venue ¶ 5; Pl.’s Reply to Def.’s Mot. to Transfer [Pl.’s Reply] ¶ 5.)
The parties agree that the CSX employees likely to testify to Jungman’s work habits and
working conditions are located in Tennessee. (Mot. to Transfer Venue ¶ 7; Pl.’s Reply ¶ 7.)
Physicians who treated him are also located in Tennessee. (Mot. to Transfer ¶ 8; Pl.’s Reply ¶ 8.)
On April 29, 2010, Jungman filed a Complaint alleging violations of the Federal
Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”) in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. That court
granted CSX’s motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds and issued an order
permitting Jungman to refile his case in Tennessee. (Mot. to Transfer Ex. B [Aug. 26, 2010
Court of Common Pleas Order].) Jungman subsequently commenced this action on September
10, 2010. CSX filed its motion to transfer venue on December 22, 2010.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A motion to transfer venue in a FELA case implicates two venue provisions: 28 U.S.C. §
1404 and 45 U.S.C. § 56. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court may transfer a civil action
to any district where it might have been brought originally, in the interest of justice, for the
convenience of parties and witnesses. District courts enjoy broad discretion in deciding motions
to transfer venue, and approach such motions on a case-by-case basis. Stewart Org., Inc. v.
Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988). Courts in the Third Circuit apply a multi-factor test to
determine whether transfer is appropriate, weighing private and public interests. Jumara v. State
Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879-80 (3d Cir. 1995).
Relevant to its § 1404(a) analysis here, the Court must also consider FELA’s venue
provision, 45 U.S.C. § 56. This statute provides that FELA actions “may be brought in a district
court in the United States, in the district of the residence of the defendant, or in which the cause
of action arose, or in which the defendant shall be doing business at the time of commencing
such action.” Courts in this District have previously recognized the significance of FELA’s
venue provision, although they remain divided as to whether FELA requires heightened
2
deference to a plaintiff’s choice of forum. See Monington v. CSX Transp., Inc., Civ. A. No. 104591, 2010 WL 4751716, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 22, 2010). However, while FELA’s venue
provision may trigger special consideration, it does not preclude transfer under § 1404(a). Id.
III.
DISCUSSION
Jungman argues that this Court must give his choice of forum “notable deference,
notwithstanding the Plaintiff’s residence or the location of the underlying events.” (Pl.’s Reply
2.) To overcome this deference, Jungman contends that CSX “must establish that witnesses are
unavailable for trial” to prevail on a motion for transfer in a FELA case. (Pl.’s Reply 7-8.) The
Court recognizes that FELA demands “some additional consideration” for a plaintiff’s choice of
forum. See Monington, 2010 WL 4751716, at *2. Nevertheless, upon consideration of the
Jumara factors, the Court concludes that transfer is appropriate in this case.
A.
The Jumara Factors
The parties do not dispute that venue would be appropriate in CSX’s preferred forum, the
Middle District of Tennessee. Thus, the Court must apply the Jumara factors. See In re Amkor
Tech., Inc. Sec. Litig., Civ. A. No. 06-298, 2006 WL 3857488, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 28, 2006).
The Jumara test distinguishes between “private” and “public” interests, examining both sets of
factors to determine whether transfer is proper. Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879-80. The private interest
factors include: (1) the plaintiff’s choice of forum; (2) the defendant’s choice of forum; (3)
where the claims arose; (4) the convenience of the parties given their relative physical and
financial condition; (5) the convenience of the witnesses to the extent they may be unavailable
for trial in a given forum; and (6) the location of books and records to the extent they could not
3
be produced in the alternative forum. Id. at 879. The public factors include: (1) the
enforceability of the judgment; (2) practical considerations of trial logistics; (3) the relative court
congestion of the two fora; (4) the local interests of each forum in deciding local controversies;
(5) the public policies of the fora; and (6) the judges’ relative familiarity with the applicable law.
Id. at 879-90.
1.
The private factors
The private factors in this case weigh in favor of transfer. Only Jungman’s choice of
forum links his claims with this district. Two factors are neutral in this analysis. Neither forum
serves the convenience of both parties. The parties’ books and records should also be available
in both fora.
The remaining private factors all favor CSX’s chosen forum, the Middle District of
Tennessee. None of the claims arose in this District, as Jungman has spent his career in
Tennessee. Further, CSX observes that many witnesses it intends to call, including Jungman’s
Tennessee-based medical providers, are beyond the reach of this Court’s subpoena power. (Mot.
to Transfer ¶ 11). Jungman contends that he will nevertheless “make all witnesses and medical
personnel available for deposition.” (Pl.’s Reply ¶ 11). Notwithstanding Jungman’s confidence
that he will be able to corral these witnesses for trial, the possibility that they will prove
unavailable weighs in favor of transfer. See Monington, 2010 WL 4751716, at *3 (citing Gunder
v. CSX Transp., Inc., Civ. A. No. 08-6029, 2009 WL 2004377, at *3 (E.D. Pa. July 8, 2009)).
2.
The public factors
The public factors in this case are either neutral or favor transfer. A judgment in either
venue will be enforceable. Court congestion and public policy are not at issue. Furthermore, as
4
Jungman brings his claims under a federal statute, the judges in both districts should be familiar
with the applicable law.
The remaining factors support transfer. There is no meaningful connection between this
case and this District. Cf. Abbott v. CSX Transp., Inc., Civ. A. No. 07-2767, 2008 WL 4522481,
at *3 (E.D. Pa., Oct. 8, 2008) (discussing interest of forum in case where plaintiff performed
work for defendant in Pennsylvania). The citizens of the Middle District of Tennessee have a
much stronger interest in adjudicating claims involving workplace safety at a job site in
Nashville than the residents of this District, even though CSX also does business here. Transfer
will neither complicate nor delay trial; CSX made its motion to transfer expeditiously,
approximately three months after Jungman filed his Complaint. Cf. Colacicco v. Apotex, Inc.,
Civ. A. No. 2009 WL 4729883, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 10, 2009) (noting that court’s familiarity
with case after four years on its docket weighed against transfer).
Though Jungman’s choice of forum may warrant special consideration under FELA, his
choice of forum alone does not outweigh the many factors that favor transfer to the Middle
District of Tennessee. Taken as a whole, “the location of the events giving rise to the claim, the
convenience of the witnesses and public interest factors override plaintiff’s preference in forum.”
See Monington, 2010 WL 4751716, at *4. Thus, notwithstanding FELA’s venue provision,
transfer is appropriate in this case.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of the Jumara factors, the Court will grant CSX’s motion to transfer
venue. An Order consistent with this Memorandum will be docketed separately.
5
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?