Shipbuilders of Wisconsin Inc v. Bent Glass Design Inc et al

Filing 8

ORDER signed by Judge William C Griesbach on 5/19/2011 denying 6 Motion to Change Venue and directing the clerk to set a telephone scheduling conference. (cc: all counsel) (Griesbach, William)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
SHIPBUILDERS OF WISCONSIN, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 11-CV-250

BENT GLASS DESIGN, INC. and
PROCURVE GLASS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
Defendants.

ORDER

In this action Shipbuilders of Wisconsin, Inc. (“Shipbuilders”) has sued Bent Glass Design,
Inc. and ProCurve Glass Technology, LLC (collectively “Defendants”) alleging that the
Pennsylvania-based companies provided defective marine laminated glass. Shipbuilders had
purchased marine laminated glass from Defendants for use in ship construction in Wisconsin.
Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Local Civil R. 7(h) motion to transfer venue to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. (Dkt. 6.) Because I conclude that
transfer to Pennsylvania is not clearly more convenient and does not serve the interests of justice,
I will deny Defendants’ motion to transfer.
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) authorizes a district court to transfer a case when the moving party
demonstrates that transfer is “clearly more convenient.” Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d
217, 219-20 (7th Cir. 1986). In weighing a transfer motion, the court must decide whether transfer
will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the interests of justice. Id.; see

also Roberts & Schaefer Co. v. Merit Contracting, Inc., 99 F.3d 248, 254 (7th Cir. 1996) (question
is whether plaintiff's interest in choosing forum is outweighed by either convenience concerns of
parties and witnesses or interest of justice). The convenience inquiry requires the court to consider
the situs of material events, ease of access to sources of proof, including the location of the parties
and the witnesses, and plaintiff's choice of forum. Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Columbia Tristar
Homes Video, Inc., 851 F.Supp. 1265, 1269 (E.D. Wis. 1994); Kinney v. Anchorlock Corp., 736 F.
Supp. 818, 829 (N.D. Ill. 1990). The “interest of justice” analysis focuses on whether transfer
would promote the “efficient administration of the court system,” including whether transfer would
insure or hinder a speedy trial. Coffey, 796 F.2d at 221.
Here witnesses live both in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and material events occurred in
both states. As such the convenience of the parties and witnesses is not determinative. Defendants
argue that the parties’ 2010 purchase documents – which contain Pennsylvania forum selection
clauses – evidence the parties’ desire to adjudicate disputes in Pennsylvania. Defendants have not
shown, however, that the 2010 agreement was intended to apply retroactively to control jurisdiction
of disputes arising out of prior purchases. Indeed, Shipbuilders purchased the marine glass at issue
here between 2007 and 2008, under purchase documents that did not contain forum selection
clauses. Shipbuilders’ decision to file suit in Wisconsin is entitled to substantial weight as
Shipbuilders is a Wisconsin corporation. See Almond v. Pollard, 2010 WL 2024099 at *2 (W.D.
Wis. 2010). In balancing Shipbuilders’ choice of forum against the above factors, this Court does
not find that the factors tilt “strongly in favor” of Defendants’ transfer request. Gulf Oil v. Gilbert,
330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947). Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to transfer (Dkt. 6) is denied. The

2

Clerk is directed to set this matter on the Court’s calendar for a Rule 16 telephone scheduling
conference.
SO ORDERED this

19th

day of May, 2011.

s/ William C. Griesbach
William C. Griesbach
United States District Judge

3