Phillips et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
Filing
14
OPINION. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. on 01/13/2016. (walk, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
TERRY S. PHILLIPS et al.
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-544-JAG
V.
UBER TECI-INOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendant.
OPINION
Uber has moved this Court to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York ("SDNY"). The incident that led to this suit occurred in the
SDNY. The Court has balanced the convenience and justice of the transfer, and finds that the
balance tips in favor of transfer. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Uber's motion to transfer
venue and TRANSFERS the case to the Southern District of New York.
I. BACKGROUND
Uber Technologies, Inc., a company incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of
business in California, created and administers an Internet application that connects drivers with
passengers. For a fee, an Uber driver picks up a passenger at a designated spot and takes the
passenger to his or her selected destination.
Phillips, a citizen of Virginia, and Mroz, a citizen of Texas, used the Uber application to
request transportation in New York City, New York.
An Uber driver, Allaoua Chatouk,
responded to their request and drove them to their destination. At that point, an "argument arose
when Chatouk attempted to charge Phillips for both the Uber fare and a taxi fare." ( PL's Mem.
0pp. Mot. Transfer Venue, Dk. No. 8 at 4.) When Phillips refused to pay the extra fee, Chatouk
allegedly drove off with Mroz still in the car. Once Mroz got out of the car, an earth-shattering
argument continued. Phillips and Mroz ducked into a hotel, but when they emerged, Chatouk
attacked Phillips with a deadly umbrella. New York City police officers then arrested Chatouk.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
"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 deciding whether to transfer venue, "a district court must make two
inquiries: (1) whether the claims might have been brought in the transferee forum, and (2)
whether the interest of justice and convenience of the parties and witnesses justify transfer to that
forum." Koh v. Microtek !nl 7, Inc., 250 F. Supp. 2d 627, 630 (E.D. Va. 2003). "As part of the
second inquiry the court must also consider the plaintiffs choicc of venue." Agilent Techs., Inc.
V. Micromuse, Inc., 316 F. Supp. 2d 322, 325 (E.D. Va. 2004). "The party seeking transfer bears
the burden of proving that the circumstances of the case are strongly in favor of transfer." Heinz
Kettler GMBH c& Co. v. Razor USA, LLC, 750 F. Supp. 2d 660, 667 (E.D. Va. 2010) (internal
citation & quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original). Nonetheless, "the ultimate decision
[on whether to transfer a case] is committed to the sound discretion of the district court."
Pragmatus AV, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., 769 F. Supp. 2d 991, 994 (E.D. Va. 2011).
III. DISCUSSION
A. Jurisdiction ofthe Transferee Forum
Phillips and Mroz could have brought their claim in the transferee forum because the
alleged assault, battery, and false imprisonment all occurred in the SDNY. Generally, venue can
lie in "a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the
claim occurred." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). The events leading to this lawsuit occurred in New
York City, which falls within the SDNY, entitling the plaintiffs to bring suit there.
B. The Interest ofJustice and Convenience ofthe Parties
The second step of the § 1404(a) venue transfer analysis requires the court to balance
four factors: (I) the weight accorded to plaintiffs choice of venue; (2) witness convenience and
access; (3) the convenience of the parties; and (4) the interests of justice. See Tr. ofthe Plumbers
& Pipefitters Naf'l Pension Fund v. Plumbing Servs., Inc., 791 F.3d 436, 444 (4lh Cir. 2015).
The Court addresses each factor in turn.
1. Phillips and Mroz's Choice of Venue
The court must give the plaintiffs choice of a home forum substantial weight, but in
cases where the events that precipitated the lawsuit did not occur in the home forum, the court
gives plaintiffs choice less deference. "The initial choice of forum, from among those possible
under the law, is a privilege given to the plaintiff." JTH Tax, Inc. v. Lee, 482 F. Supp. 2d 731,
736 (E.D. Va. 2007) (quoting Koh, 250 F. Supp. 2d at 633). The plaintiffs choice of forum "is
typically entitled to 'substantial weight,' especially where the chosen forum is the plaintiffs
home forum or bears a substantial relation to the cause of action." Heinz Kettler GMBH & Co. v.
Razor USA, LLC, 750 F. Supp. 2d 660, 667 (E.D. Va. 2010).
On the other hand, "even when the plaintiff sues in its home forum, that fact is not by
itself controlling and the weight of that factor depends on the nexus tying the case to the forum."
Gebr. Brasseler GmbH & Co. KG v. Abrasive Tech., Inc., No. 1:08CV1246, 2009 WL 874513,
at *2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 27, 2009). "The level of deference to a plaintiffs forum choice 'varies with
the significance of the contacts between the venue chosen by plaintiff and the underlying cause
of action.'" Pragmatus, 769 F. Supp. 2d at 995 (quoting Bd. ofTrs. v. Baylor Heating & Air
Conditioning, Inc., 702 F. Supp. 1253, 1256 (E.D. Va. 1988)). When none of the "operative
events in the lawsuit took place in the district in which the action was originally filed, a motion
to transfer to the district in which the events occurred is likely to succeed." Finmeccanica S.p.A.
V. Gen. Motors Corp., No. 1:07CV794, 2007 WL 4143074, at *4 (E.D. Va. Nov. 19, 2007)
(citing 17 James Wm. Moore, et a\., Moore's Federal Practice § 111.13(l)(d)(I) n. 23 (3d ed.
2005)).
While Phillips does reside in the Eastern District of Virginia ("EDVA"), the facts that
give rise to this lawsuit occurred in the SDNY, so the plaintiffs choice of venue receives some
weight, but does not control. Moreover, the co-plaintiff in this case lives in Texas, and has no
connection to Virginia. Given the transportation centers in New York, that venue is undoubtedly
more convenient to Mroz. Phillips's choice of venue, therefore, does not tip the scale in favor of
transfer.
See JTH Tax, Inc. v, Lee, 482 F. Supp. 2d 731, 736-37 (E.D. Va. 2007) (citations
omitted).
2. Convenience ofthe Witnesses and Parties
In considering the convenience of the witnesses, "this court considers factors such as the
'ease of access to sources of proof, the cost of obtaining the attendance of witnesses, and the
availability of compulsory process.'" Lycos, 499 F. Supp. 2d at 693 (quoting Samsung Elecs.
Co. V. Rambus, Inc., 386 F. Supp. 2d 708, 717 n.l3 (E.D. Va. 2005)).
When considering
witnesses: "[The EDVA] draws a distinction between party-witnesses and non-party witnesses
and affords greater weight to the convenience of non-party witnesses." Id. (quoting Samsung,
386 F. Supp. 2d at 718).
As to the parties, the balance tips neither for nor against transfer.' Although it is a
corporation, Uber will undoubtedly have to transport Chatouk to Virginia to serve as its human
face for the trial. Mroz resides in Texas and would have to travel regardless of whether the case
proceeds in the EDVA or in the SDNY. On the other hand, transferring venue to the SDNY
would impose a burden on Phillips, a Virginia resident. No matter the location, two of the three
parties have to travel a great distance for the trial.
In contrast, almost all the non-party witnesses have close ties to New York. The hotel
staff and police officers certainly work in New York and probably live close to there. Of the
non-party witnesses, only Phillips's treating physician resides and works in Virginia. Treating
physicians frequently testify by video recorded deposition, so Phillips will suffer little prejudice
if his doctor cannot or (more likely) will not travel to New York. The convenience of witnesses
factor weighs in favor of transfer. This factor tips more strongly for transfer if Chatouk must
take time off to come to Virginia to testify simply as a witness.
3. The Interests ofJustice
In evaluating the interest of justice, relevant considerations include "the pendency of a
related action, the court's familiarity with applicable law, docket conditions, access to premises
that might have to be viewed, the possibility of unfair trial, the ability to join other parties, and
the possibility of harassment." Pragmafus, 769 F. Supp. 2d at 996. To the Court's knowledge,
no related matters exist, no conditions exist that would indicate the possibility of an unfair trial,
nor any possibility of harassment. The Court analyzes the applicable factors below.
The federal court system has subject-matter jurisdiction over this claim under § 1332
because diversity of citizenship exists and the plaintiffs allege more than $75,000 in controversy.
' Technically, the convenience of parties is a separate issue from the convenience of party
witnesses, Trustees ofthe Phmibers and Pipefitters Nat. Pension Fund, 791 F.3d at 444-445, but
in this case the same considerations apply to both issues and the results work out the same way.
5
28 U.S.C. § 1332. This Court applies the choice of law provisions of Virginia, the forum state.
Virginia law dictates that in a tort case the law of the "place of the wrong" governs the
substantive law in the litigation. McMillan v. McMillan, 219 Va. 1127, 1128, 253 S.E.2d 662,
663 (1979). Here, the underlying facts occurred in New York City, so New York tort law would
govern. The SDNY has far more familiarity and experience in adjudicating matters of New York
law, and this factor counsels in favor of transfer.
The plaintiffs cite the docket conditions of the EDVA as a factor that indicates that the
Court should leave the case in the EDVA. As noted by the EDVA many times over, "[t]his
Court cannot stand as a willing repository for cases which have no real nexus to this district."
Cogniironics ImagingSys., Inc. v. Recognilion Research Inc., 83 F. Supp. 2d 689, 699 (E.D. Va.
2000).
"The 'rocket docket' certainly attracts plaintiffs, but the Court must ensure that this
attraction does not dull the ability of the Court to continue to act in an expeditious manner." Id.
"In other words, this Court should not allow itself to be overrun by a horde of Visigoths who
simply want quick results." Intercarrier Communications, LLC v. Glympse, Inc., No. 3:12-CV767, 2013 WL 4083318, at *6 (E.D.Va. Aug. 12, 2013).
The other interests of justice factors also weigh in favor of transfer.
Since all of the
alleged events that gave rise to this lawsuit took place in New York City, all premises that the
parties might need to view are in New York. Further, Uber argues that the Court should transfer
the case because this Court does not have personal jurisdiction over Chatouk, whom Uber wants
to join as a necessary party. Accordingly, the interest of justice weighs in favor of transfeiring
this case to the SDNY.
IV. CONCLUSION
Taken as a whole, the factors governing venue tilt in favor of transfer to the SDNY. For
the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS the defendant's motion to transfer venue to the
SDNY pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
The Court will enter an appropriate order.
Let the Clerk send a copy of this Opinion to all counsel of record.
John A. Gibne^r^
Date: January /^.2016
Richmond, VA
United States District Judge
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?