Summary
stating that plaintiff's choice of forum is given less weight if the case has no "significant connection to the chosen forum"
Summary of this case from Fidelity Deposit Co. v. Advance Industrial ConstOpinion
No. 03 C 2476
September 24, 2003
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Carole Heston, an individual citizen of California, states that she has been the victim of identity fraud. Ms. Heston further claims that defendant Citibank, along with defendants Equifax and Trans Union, have violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to properly investigate and report her claim of identity fraud. Citibank has filed a motion to transfer venue from this court to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). I grant Citibank's motion.
This court may transfer venue to another district court for reasons of convenience when it is "in the interest of justice." 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a). The moving party must show that (1) venue is proper in this district, (2) venue is proper in the transferee district, and (3) the transferee district is "clearly more convenient" than this district. CoolSavings.Com v. IQ.Commerce Corp., 53 F. Supp.2d 1000, 1005 (N.D. Ill. 1999). Neither party contests the propriety of venue in either district, so the remaining issue is whether the Central District of California, Western Division, is clearly more convenient.
I consider both the private interests of the parties and the public interest of the court when evaluating the relative convenience of two forums. The private interests are (1) the plaintiff's choice of forum; (2) the situs of material events; (3) the relative ease of access to sources of proof in each forum; and (4) the convenience of the parties. The public interests considered include the court's familiarity with the applicable law and the desirability of resolving a case in a particular forum. Id. at 1005-1006.
I first consider the plaintiff's choice of forum. Normally, this choice weighs heavily in a § 1404 decision, unless no significant connection to the chosen forum exists. Id. at 1005. In this case, no significant connection to this district exists. Ms. Heston is a citizen of California, giving her choice of this forum less weight in my decision. Murphy v. Avon Products, 88 F. Supp.2d 851, 852 (N.D. Ill. 1999). Ms. Henson further does not allege any facts connecting her claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act to locations within this district. This factor weighs in favor of transfer.
Next, I consider the situs of material events. Ms. Henson alleges no facts that would place the situs of material events within this district. By her own admission, the wrongs she complains of with regard to her credit report are national, perhaps even global, in nature. Nothing connects specifically with this district, and the only connection with the Central District of California is the fact that Ms. Henson is a resident in that district. This factor does not weigh decisively in either direction.
Third, I consider the relative ease of access to sources of proof. Citibank is headquartered in South Dakota and Ms. Henson is a resident of California. Neither party has a direct connection to this district, nor does Ms. Henson allege that any evidence is to be found within this district. On the other hand, Ms. Henson herself and her own records are located in California, including the records needed to prove her claims of emotional distress and out-of-pocket expenses. This factor weighs slightly in favor of transfer.
Finally, I consider the convenience of the parties, including their respective residences and ability to bear the costs of trial, Ms. Henson, as a resident of California, makes the unusual argument that transfer should not be granted because of the increased inconvenience to Citibank. Citibank, however, states that a transfer to California would not be more inconvenient for it than this district.
Ms. Henson further argues that transfer to California would increase her inconvenience because of the location of her counsel. However, the location of counsel is, at best, of minor consideration when evaluating a transfer. Murphy, 88 F. Supp.2d at 853. Although Ms. Henson's chosen counsel is primarily located in Chicago, she admits that they do have members admitted in California. Despite her alleged initial difficulties in finding qualified counsel, Ms. Henson makes no statement that her chosen counsel will not represent her regardless of where this claim is brought. The convenience factor weighs slightly in favor of transfer.
In addition to these private factors, I must also consider the interests of this court, including familiarity with the relevant law and the interests of resolving the dispute within the district. As Ms. Henson's claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act involve federal law, both district courts should be equally capable of handling those claims in a fair and timely manner. The interest of resolving the dispute within a given district weighs in favor of transfer. California surely has an interest in protecting its citizens, including Ms. Henson. This district has no corresponding interest. The public factors weigh in favor of transfer.
Ms. Henson suggests that because Chicago is located within this district, an especially large number of companies and individuals in the district would potentially be affected by interpretation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Even if her theory holds true, the presence of Los Angeles within the Central District of California, Western Division, should ensure an equally large group of potentially affected entities.
After careful consideration of the preceding factors, I conclude that Ms. Henson' s claim against Citibank has no connection to this district other than the location of her chosen counsel. This tenuous connection is not sufficient to counterbalance the factors that weigh in favor of transfer. I therefore grant Citibank's motion and transfer this case to the Central District of California, Western Division.