Opinion
Civil Action No. 02-433 Section "T"(2)
May 7, 2002
Before this Court is a Motion to Transfer and Consolidate (Document 3) filed by the Defendants, U-Haul Company of North Carolina and U-Haul International Inc. ("U-Haul"). This cause came for hearing on March 13, 2002, without oral argument. The Court, having studied the legal memoranda and exhibits submitted by the Defendants, the record, and the applicable law, is fully advised on the premises and ready to rule.
ORDER AND REASONS
I. BACKGROUND:
The above-captioned action (the "Cowan suit") arises out of an automobile accident that occurred on Interstate 10 near Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, on December 27, 1999. The Plaintiffs originally Filed this wrongful death and survival action in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana. On February 21, 2001, the Defendants timely filed a Notice of Removal with this Court. The Defendants asserted that federal jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. diversity of citizenship.
On March 22, 2001, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand alleging that divrsity jurisdiction did not exist. After filing an Opposition to the Motion to Remand, two of the Defendants, Kevin Jack and Republic Western Insurance Company ("Republic"), filed a Notice of No Opposition to Motion to Remand Action to State Court withdrawing their original opposition on August 13, 2001. After receiving the Notice of No Opposition, this Court remanded the Cowan suit to state court on August 15, 2001.
On January 26, 2001, a companion case bearing the caption " Dortch, et al. v. Jack, et al." and filed by a different set of Plaintiffs, but arising out of the same automobile accident that occurred on Interstate 10 near Bay St. Louis, Mississippi. on December 27, 1999, was removed from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana (the "Dortch suit"). Although both suits arose out of the same automobile accident, the Dortch suit and the Cowan suit were never consolidated. On July 10, 2001, this Court transferred the Dortch suit to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. In the Order and Reasons transferring the Dortch suit to the Southern District of Mississippi, the Court determined that all of the Defendants were completely diverse from all of the Plaintiffs, and therefore diversity jurisdiction was established.
On February 15, 2002, the Cowan suit was again removed from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana by U-Haul, who never withdrew its opposition to the original Motion to Remand. In its Petition for Removal. U-Haul requests this Court to transfer the Cowan suit to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi for possible consolidation with the Dortch suit so that the parties do not have to litigate the same facts in two different forums.
On March 15, 2002, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand in the Cowan suit arguing that one of the Defendants, Kevin Jack, was a Louisiana domiciliary and therefore all parties were not diverse and this Court did not have jurisdiction. In its Opposition to the Motion to Remand, U-Haul argues that this Court has determined that Kevin Jack is not a Louisiana domiciliary in its Order and Reasons transferring the Dortch suit to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. If Kevin Jack is not a Louisiana domiciliary, then diversity jurisdiction exists and U-Haul requests that the Cowan suit be transferred for possible consolidation with the Dortch suit.
The Court determines that, based on the factual findings explained in its Order and Reasons dated July 10, 2001 in Civil Action 01-241 T (3) [the Dortch suit], the parties in the Cowan suit are completely diverse and this Court retains jurisdiction over the matter.
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS:
A. Motion to Transfer Venue:
U-Haul has requested that this Court transfer the instant case to the Southern District of Mississippi for possible consolidation with the companion Dortch suit. A district court may transfer any civil action to any other district in which it might have been brought for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or if such transfer is found to be in the interest of justice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a). In determining whether to transfer venue in a particular case, "the court must exercise its discretion in light of the particular circumstances of the case." Hanby v. Shell Oil Co., Civ. A. 1:00CV331, 2001 WL 640639, at * 3 (E:D.Tex. March 5, 2001) (citing Radio Santa FE v. Sena, 687 F. Supp. 284, 287 (E.D.Tex. 1988)). In doing so, the court must balance two categories of interests: 1) the so-called private interests, which take into account the convenience of the litigants, and 2) the public interests, which take into account the fair and efficient administration of justice. See Hanby, 2001 WL 640639, at *3 (citingRobertson v. Kiamichi RR Co., L.L.C., 42 F. Supp.2d 651, 655 (E.D.Tex. 1999)).
In balancing the aforementioned categories of interests, courts are to consider the following factors:
Convenience factors. [which] include: (1) plaintiffs choice of forum; (2) convenience of parties and witnesses; (3) place of the alleged wrong; (4) location of counsel; (5) cost of obtaining the attendance of witnesses; (6) accessibility and location of sources of proof; and (7) possibility of delay and prejudice if transfer is granted.
Public interest factors, [which] include: (1) administrative difficulties caused by court congestion; (2) local interest in adjudicating local disputes; (3) unfairness of burdening citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty; and (4) avoidance of unnecessary problems in conflict of laws.Hanby, 2001 WL 640639, at *3 (quoting Robertson v. Kiamichi RR Co., L.L.C., 42 F. Supp.2d 651, 655 (E.D.Tex. 1999)); see also Willis v. Parrot, Civ.A. No. 96-691, 1996 WL 337241, at * 4 (E.D.La. June 17, 1996).
Furthermore, it is important to note that typically, unless these factors balance heavily in favor of the defendants, the plaintiffs choice of forum should rarely be disturbed. See Willis, 1996 WL 337241, at * 4 (citing Schexnider v. McDermott Intern., Inc., 817 F.2d 1159, 1163 (5th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 977, 108 S.Ct. 488, 98 L.Ed.2d 486 (1987); Peteet v. Dow Chemical Co., 868 F.2d 1428, 1436 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 935, 110 S.Ct. 328, 107 L.Ed.2d 318 (1989)). However, "when the plaintiffs choice of forum has no factual nexus to the case or when the plaintiff has chosen a district other than the district in which he or she resides, then courts are to give that choice of forum little weight See Robertson, 42 F. Supp.2d at 656; Paul v. International Metals Corp, 613 F. Supp. 174, 179 (S.D.Miss. 1985); 15 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3848 (1986).
B. Application of the Factors to the Case at Hand:
In applying the aforementioned factors to the case at hand, it is apparent that this Court should give minimal deference to the Plaintiffs' choice of forum. First, the Plaintiffs do not reside in this District; rather, they are residents of Alabama. Second, there is no identifiable nexus of activity within this District. The automobile accident that is the subject matter of this litigation occurred in Hancock County, Mississippi, not in the Eastern District of Louisiana. Thus, this Court should give little deference to the Plaintiffs' choice of forum. In addition, most witnesses and parties are to be found outside of the Eastern District of Louisiana. These factors weigh in favor of a transfer to the Southern District of Mississippi.
Next, the Court must consider the location of counsel as a convenience factor. However, this factor is to be given little weight as compared to the other convenience factors. See Robertson, 42 F. Supp.2d at 658 (citing Reed v. Fina Oil and Chemical Co., 995 F. Supp. 705, 715 (E.D.Tex. 1998)). in the present case, the Plaintiffs' counsel is located in New Orleans, Louisiana, and counsel for Defendants are located in both Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and Gulf Port, Mississippi. Therefore, neither the current venue nor the proposed venue "would be particularly convenient or inconvenient for both counsel" Id. Accordingly, this factor weighs neither in favor of nor against transfer of venue.
In addition to those convenience factors that weigh in favor of transfer to the Southern District of Mississippi, several of the public interest factors weigh in favor of transfer. First, with regard to any administrative difficulties caused by court congestion, it can be argued that all courts are overly crowded with cases. While courts have held that the "speed of disposition of lawsuits" without any connection to the forum District "is not a valid reason for forum shopping," filing cases without any rational nexus to the forum district could create congestion beyond that district's resources See Hanby, 2001 WL 640639, at *5. Rock Bit Internat'l, Inc. v. Smith Internat'l, Inc., 957 F. Supp. 843, 844 (E.D.Tex. 1997). This Court is of the opinion that "the courts of this district should not be required to expend judicial resources on matters that have little relationship to this district." "Varnado v. Danek Medical, Inc., No.Civ.A. 95-1802, 1998 WL 524896, at * 3 (E.D.La. August 19, 1998). Accordingly, this factor weighs heavily in favor of a transfer to the Southern District of Mississippi.
Second, since the automobile accident that gave rise to this lawsuit occurred in Hancock County, Mississippi, there is a close nexus between that accident and the Southern District of Mississippi. Additionally, Mississippi law will apply in the instant case. Accordingly, the citizens of the Southern District of Mississippi have a strong local interest in resolving this controversy. Furthermore. there is no corresponding local interest in the Eastern District of Louisiana. This factor, too, clearly weighs in favor of transferring venue to the Southern District of Mississippi. See Robertson, 42 F. Supp.2d at 659.
With respect to the burdens of jury duty, because the accident that gave rise to this lawsuit occurred in Mississippi and because Mississippi law will be applied in this case, the citizens of this District should not be burdened with jury duty in this case. Rather, it seems most fair and just that the citizens of the Southern District of Mississippi be called upon to decide disputed facts in this case. "Under these circumstances, the waste of judicial resources and imposition upon the citizens of this state are manifest." Hartford, 725 F. Supp. at 322. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of a transfer.
Additionally, the companion Dortch suit has been transferred to the Southern District of Mississippi. The Court does not see why the citizens of the Eastern District of Louisiana should be burdened with a dispute that has no connection to the this District, especially when the exact facts will be litigated in the Southern District of Mississippi. Forcing the parties involved to litigate the same facts in different forums would be a waste of the clients' money and a waste of judicial resources.
III. CONCLUSION:
Given the minimal weight afforded the Plaintiffs' choice of forum in this case, wherein there is no factual nexus to this District and the Plaintiffs do not reside in this District, the relative weight of the remaining factors leads this Court to the conclusion that this action more properly belongs in the Southern District of Mississippi. This Court is satisfied that the majority of both the convenience and public interest factors weigh in favor of such a transfer. Furthermore, this court finds that the interests of justice would be best served by transferring this case. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants' Motion to Transfer be, and the same is hereby GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-captioned action be, and the same is hereby, transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi for possible consolidation with " Dortch, et al. v. Jack, et al", United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Southern Division, under Civil Action No. 1:01-CV-289 BrR.