Westport Insurance Corporation v. Pennsyvlania National Mutual Insurance Company

Filing 33

ORDER granting motion to transfer venue 19 , TRANSFERRING case to USDC for Southern District of TX & directing Clrk of Ct to CLOSE case. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 7/1/16. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WESTPORT INSURANCE
CORPORATION,

:
:
:
Plaintiff
:
v.
:
:
PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL
:
MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE :
COMPANY, d/b/a PENN
:
NATIONAL INSURANCE
:
:
Defendant
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-508
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 1st day of July, 2016, upon consideration of the motion
(Doc. 19) to transfer venue, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), filed by defendant
Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company, d/b/a Penn National
Insurance (“Penn National”), wherein Penn National seeks transfer of the
above-captioned action to the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Texas, (see Doc. 19 at 1), and further upon consideration of plaintiff Westport
Insurance Corporation’s (“Westport”) brief (Doc. 25) in opposition thereto, wherein
Westport concedes that the instant case could have been brought in the Southern
District of Texas, (see id. at 6), but asserts that transfer is unwarranted under the
circumstances, (see id. at 7-21), and the court recognizing that it is vested with
“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, 879 (3d Cir. 1995) (citing Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh
Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 30-31 (1988)), and that the enumerated private and public

interest factors which guide the court’s transfer analysis include, inter alia, the
parties’ forum preferences; where the claims arose; convenience to parties and
witnesses; location of documents and records; local interest in deciding local
controversies; public policies of the respective courts; the court’s familiarity with
applicable law; and whether litigation will be expedited or simplified by transfer,
see id.; High River Ltd. P’ship v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 353 F. Supp. 2d 487, 497
(M.D. Pa. 2005), and it appearing that Westport has initiated suit in neither its
home district nor the location where central facts underlying the dispute occurred,
entitling its choice of forum to less deference thereupon, (see Doc. 19 at 9; Doc. 29
at 1-4); Melone v. Boeing Co., No. 2:07-CV-1192, 2008 WL 877974, at *2 (D.N.J. Mar.
28, 2008); Lomanno v. Black, 285 F. Supp. 2d 637, 644 (E.D. Pa. 2003); see also Piper
Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 255-56 (1981); that Westport’s claims derive from
alleged events occurring within the Southern District of Texas, (see Doc. 19 at 10;
Doc. 29 at 2-4; cf. Doc. 25 at 12-13); that no potential witnesses tendered by the
parties reside or are located in Pennsylvania, fourteen of nineteen potential
witnesses reside or are located in Texas, and thirteen of those fourteen are
non-party witnesses who may be unavailable for trial in Pennsylvania, (see Doc.
18-2 ¶ 3; Doc. 19 at 10-12; Doc. 25 at 13-14; Doc. 29 at 4-5); FED. R. CIV. P. 45(c)(1)(A);
Hillard v. Guidant Corp., 76 F. Supp. 2d 566, 570-71 (M.D. Pa. 1999); Mentor
Graphics Corp. v. Quickturn Design Sys., Inc., 77 F. Supp. 2d 505, 510 (D. Del. 1999);
that records and documentation relevant to the case are electronically
transferrable, rendering them equally available in either forum, (see Doc. 19 at 12;
Doc. 25 at 16-17); Ferratex, Inc. v. U.S. Sewer & Drain, Inc., 121 F. Supp. 3d 432, 442
2

(D.N.J. 2015); Holder v. Suarez, No. 3:CV-14-1789, 2015 WL 1345209, at *3 (M.D. Pa.
Mar. 25, 2015); that, because the insurance policies in dispute were issued to a
Texas insured, and the underlying claimant and lawsuit are located in Texas, the
state of Texas has an interest in deciding the controversy, (see Doc. 19 at 13-14; Doc.
29 at 5-6); and that Texas law applies to the claims herein, (see Doc. 19 at 14; Doc. 25
at 20; Doc. 29 at 6), and the court finding that practical and economic considerations
of conducting discovery and trial in a location proximate to the majority of
witnesses and to the events at issue weigh heavily in favor of a transfer, (see Doc. 19
at 12; Doc. 29 at 7); Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879; Hillard, 76 F. Supp. 2d at 570-71, and the
court concluding that it would be in the interests of justice and judicial economy to
transfer this case, see 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The motion (Doc. 19) to transfer venue is GRANTED.

2.

The above-captioned case is TRANSFERRED to the Unites States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas. See 28 U.S.C. §
1404(a).

3.

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania