From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Manfredy v. Remick

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
Feb 9, 2000
No. 99-C-3797 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 9, 2000)

Opinion

No. 99-C-3797

February 9, 2000


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER


Plaintiff Angel Manfredy, a professional boxer and a citizen of Indiana, filed an eight-count complaint against Defendants Lloyd Z. Remick and Bernard M. Resnick, attorneys who represented Manfredy as his sports agents, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, fraud and other claims relating to Defendants' alleged failure to secure lucrative fights and commercial endorsements for Manfredy. Defendants, citizens of Pennsylvania, moved to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, or, in the alternative, for transfer to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Concerned about Illinois' connection to the action, this court directed the parties to further brief the transfer issue.

In order to rule on Defendants' transfer motion, the court need not reach the issue of whether this court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Cote v. Wadel, 796 F.2d 981, 985 (7th Cir. 1986). In conducting a Section 1404(a) transfer analysis, the court must first determine whether venue is proper in both the transferor district and the transferee district. Sanders v. Franklin, 25 F. Supp.2d 855, 856 (N.D. Ill 1998). Venue is proper in the transferee district because both defendants reside in Pennsylvania. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). Venue is also proper here because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Manfredy's claims based on the fee agreement occurred in Illinois. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). The court has already outlined events relating to the negotiation and execution of the fee agreement that took place in Chicago as well as Defendants' contact with Manfredy's manager and attorney in Chicago throughout their representation of him. Seven of Manfredy's eight claims arise from either the issues of contract formation and contract interpretation or with Defendants' performance under the contract.

In analyzing venue, the parties and the court both previously relied on Section 1391(a). However, because a federal question is involved here, Section 1391(b) is the applicable law. The court notes that Subsections (1) and (2) under both 1391(a) and 1391(b) are identical.

Next, the court must weigh both the public interests and the private interests involved to determine how transfer would affect the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice. Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217, 219 (7th Cir. 1986). The private interest factors weigh slightly in favor of transfer: (1) Manfredy's choice of forum is entitled to little deference because it is not his home forum and the central facts of the lawsuit occurred in Pennsylvania, FUL Inc. v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 204, 839 F. Supp. 1307, 1311 (N.D.Ill. 1993); Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Honeywell, Inc., 817 F. Supp. 473, 481 (D.N.J. 1993); (2) the convenience of the parties and witnesses is a wash: both parties will be inconvenienced by having to litigate in the other forum; the four non-party witnesses identified as having the most material testimony are evenly split between the two fora; (3) the situs of material events — e.g., Defendants' failure to adequately perform services under the contract is Pennsylvania; and (4) because most of the evidence appears to be in the form of written correspondence and other written documents, the availability of evidence is also a wash. Sanders, 25 F. Supp.2d at 857.

There are at least some indications that one of the reasons for Manfredy's choice of Illinois forum is his desire to avoid being sued by Defendants in Pennsylvania. The court concludes that this is not a legitimate reason for deferring to a plaintiff's choice of forum.

Public interest factors also weigh in favor of transfer:

(1) Pennsylvania has a greater interest than Illinois in resolving matters involving the conduct of lawyers licensed to practice and doing business within its jurisdiction; (2) Pennsylvania would be more familiar with the applicable law because under Illinois' "most significant contacts" choice of law analysis, Pennsylvania law would apply because the place of performance was in Pennsylvania, Gramercy Mills, Inc. v. Wolens, 6 F.3d 569, 572 (7th Cir. 1995); and (3) the congestion of the respective dockets is also a wash: a case goes to trial faster in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, but is disposed of more quickly in Illinois.

The court concludes that transfer is appropriate. For the reasons set forth here and in the court's previous order, Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (Doc. No. 6-1) is denied as moot; Defendants' motion to dismiss for improper venue (Doc. 6-2) is denied; and Defendants' motion to transfer (Doc. No. 6-5) is granted. This court orders the transfer of this matter to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.


Summaries of

Manfredy v. Remick

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
Feb 9, 2000
No. 99-C-3797 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 9, 2000)
Case details for

Manfredy v. Remick

Case Details

Full title:ANGEL MANFREDY, Plaintiff, v. LLOYD Z. REMICK and BERNARD RESNICK…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

Date published: Feb 9, 2000

Citations

No. 99-C-3797 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 9, 2000)

Citing Cases

Remick v. Manfredy

Accordingly, in weighing these factors, we find the scales remain balanced. By Memorandum and Order of…