Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 03-5302
December 4, 2003
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiffs, New Jersey residents, brought this personal injury action against Pennsylvania defendants for injuries sustained by the minor plaintiff in a car accident which had occurred in Monroe County, Pennsylvania. The defendant Penn Estates Property Owners' Association, whose officers and board members reside in Monroe County in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and Deborah Raesly, the former owner of the property adjacent to the roadway where the accident happened and who now lives in the upper tier of this district, seek transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), claiming that the Middle District is the more appropriate forum. Opposing the transfer, the plaintiffs argue that this case should remain in the district they prefer and where two of the defendants reside.
After considering all relevant factors and giving significant consideration to the plaintiffs' preference, we conclude that this case should be transferred to the Middle District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Background Facts
Plaintiffs, a mother and her minor daughter, brought this action against the defendants for injuries sustained by the minor when she was struck by a car while walking along a roadway on December 7, 2001. In addition to suing the driver of the car, the plaintiffs named as defendants the then-owner of the property bordering the road where the accident occurred and four homeowners associations whose relationship to each other and to the other parties is unknown. Plaintiffs allege that the associations and the property owner negligently failed to provide adequate lighting, sidewalks and road shoulders.
Legal Standard
— A defendant moving for transfer of venue bears the burden of demonstrating that (1) the case could have been brought initially in the proposed transferee forum; (2) the proposed transfer will be more convenient for the parties and witnesses; and, (3) the proposed transfer will be in the interest of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir. 1995); Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp., 431 F.2d 22, 25 (3d Cir. 1970). Once the defendants establish that the action could have been brought in the proposed district, the court must weigh several private and public interest factors to determine whether the balance of conveniences tips in favor of transfer. Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879-80.
The plaintiffs do not dispute that this action could have been properly filed in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
Among the factors considered when determining whether transfer is more convenient for the parties and in the interest of justice are: (1)the plaintiffs' choice of forum; (2) the defendants' preferred forum; (3) the place where the claim arose; (4) the relative ease of access to the sources of proof; (5) the convenience of the parties as demonstrated by relative financial status and physical location; (6) the availability of compulsory process for the attendance of witnesses; (7) the convenience of the witnesses; (8) the practical problems that make trial of a case expensive and inefficient; and, (9) "public interest" factors, such as congestion of court dockets and the relationship of the jury and the community to the underlying district. Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879-80; McMillan v. Weeks Marine, No. Civ. 02-6741, 2002 WL 32107617, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 2, 2002).
The district court has broad discretion in deciding a motion for transfer of venue because the analysis involved is "flexible and individualized." Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988). Despite this wide latitude, a transfer motion is not to be granted without a careful weighing of factors favoring and disfavoring transfer. See Shutte, 431 F.2d at 24-25. Indeed, we begin our analysis by favoring the plaintiffs' selection of venue because the defendants bear the burden of demonstrating that the balance of convenience and the interest of justice clearly favor transfer. Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879-80; see also McMillan, 2002 WL 32107617, at *1.
The plaintiffs' choice of venue is usually given paramount consideration. Shutte, 431 F.2d at 25. However, it is given less deference where the plaintiff does not reside in the chosen forum and none of the operative facts occurred there. See McMillan, 2002 WL 32107617, at *1-*2; 15 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., FED. PRAC. PROC. JURIS. 2D § 3848 (2d ed. 1986); cf. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 255 n. 23 (1981) (noting that "[c]itizens or residents deserve somewhat more deference than foreign plaintiffs").
Analysis
The plaintiffs, whose home in New Jersey is closer to the federal courthouse in Scranton than to Philadelphia, have offered no reason for choosing a forum where they do not reside, where the minor plaintiff was not treated, and where the accident did not occur. The only connection to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is that one and possibly another defendant reside here.
The plaintiffs contend that Edward Bigelow, the driver of the car, resides in the Eastern District. Although the complaint alleges that his address is within the Middle District, the unexecuted return of service states that his "possible address" is in Philadelphia. He has not been served. Thus, his present whereabouts are unknown.
Only two of the six defendants have been served with process. Raesly, the only defendant who we know lives in this district, has joined in the motion to transfer. While she resides within the Eastern District, her present home is closer to the federal courthouse in Scranton.
Defendant Penn Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. has not been served. Defendant Cranberry Hill Corporation no longer exists. It appears from the unexecuted return of service that it sold its interest to moving defendant Penn Estates Property Owners' Association.
— The place where the cause of action arose and the sources of proof are in the Middle District. The accident occurred in Monroe County, which is in the Middle District. The defendants' alleged acts and omissions all took place in the Middle District. The homeowners associations' records, officers and board members are in the Middle District.
The convenience of the witnesses and the cost of litigating this case in either forum weigh in favor of transfer. Plaintiffs' home is closer to Scranton than Philadelphia. The fact witnesses, the members and the board members of the associations, and the emergency medical personnel are residents of the Middle District. The two New Jersey medical witnesses who later treated the minor plaintiff will not be inconvenienced by appearing, if necessary, in either district because the difference in travel distance is minimal. Thus, a trial held in the Middle District will be easier, more expeditious, and less expensive.
Conclusion
Weighing the factors of convenience and fairness against the plaintiffs' choice of forum requires transferring this case to the Middle District of Pennsylvania where the accident occurred and where the majority of the witnesses and sources of proof are located. Accordingly, the motions to transfer venue will be granted and this case will be transferred to the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 4th day of December, 2003, upon consideration of the Motion of Defendant Penn Estates Property Owners Association Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1404 to Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Docket No. 3), the Answer of Plaintiffs to Motion of Defendant Penn Estates Property Owners Associations Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(3)and 28 U.S.C. § 1404 to Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Docket No. 4), the Answer of Defendant Deborah Raesly to the Motion of Defendant Penn Estates Property Owners Association Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1404 to Transfer Venue to the United States District Court fo the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Docket No. 10), and the Supplemental Answer of Plaintiffs to Motion of Defendant Penn Estates Property Owners Association Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1404 to Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Docket No. 13), it is ORDERED that the motions to transfer are GRANTED and this matter is TRANSFERRED to the Middle District of Pennsylvania.