Opinion
02 Civ. 7947 (CSH).
June 26, 2003.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
In this personal injury action commenced by a railroad employee under the Federal Employers' Liability Act ("FELA"), 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq., the defendant railroad moves for a transfer of venue.
I. Background
Plaintiff, formerly a signalman for defendant Metro-North Commuter Railroad ("Metro-North"), filed suit on October 4, 2002, seeking recovery pursuant to FELA for injuries allegedly sustained during the course of his employment. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that his right hand was injured on January 7, 2002, while performing his duties as a signalman as a result of defendant's failure to maintain a safe workplace. Defendant filed an Answer on February 7, 2003, as well as a Motion for Transfer of Venue on February 11, 2003. Defendant argues that this Court should exercise its discretion to transfer the present action to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). (Def.'s Mem. in Supp. at 1-2.) This Opinion resolves the Motion for Transfer of Venue.
II. Discussion
Defendant appeals to this Court's discretionary power pursuant to § 1404(a) to transfer the case to the District of Connecticut. Section 1404 provides that "[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought."
In considering a motion to transfer venue, a court must first determine whether the case could be brought both in the court to which transfer is sought and the court where plaintiff has filed suit. The job site where plaintiff was allegedly injured is located in New Canaan, Connecticut, plaintiff's treating doctors practice and examined plaintiff in Connecticut, and plaintiff is a Connecticut resident. Metro-North's headquarters is in New York and it regularly conducts business in New York. Because venue in a FELA case is appropriate in "either: (1) the residence of the defendant; (2) where the cause of action arose, or (3) where the defendant was doing business at the time of the commencement of the action," Young v. Canadian Nat. Ry. Co., No. 02-2057, 2003 WL 133220, at *2 (E.D.La. Jan 15, 2003) ( see also 45 U.S.C. § 56), I conclude that the present action could properly have been brought in the District of Connecticut, and was properly brought in this District.
The next step is to evaluate substantively the request to transfer venue. A court should consider the following factors to determine whether transfer is warranted:
(1) the convenience of witnesses, (2) the convenience of the parties, (3) the location of relevant documents and the relative ease of access to sources of proof, (4) the locus of operative facts, (5) the availability of process to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses, (6) the relative means of the parties, (7) the forum's familiarity with the governing law, (8) the weight accorded the plaintiff's choice of forum, and (9) trial efficiency and the interest of justice, based on the totality of the circumstances.Handler v. Regents of the University of Michigan, No. 00-6314, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15826, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2000). Although these factors are, for the most part, straightforward in their application, the parties disagree principally about the eighth factor, the weight to be accorded to the plaintiff's choice of forum. I therefore examine this factor with more particularity to determine its legal scope before turning to a factual analysis of the case in light of the factors outlined above.
Ordinarily "the plaintiff's choice of forum is accorded great weight and must be deferred to unless the balance of conveniences strongly favors defendants." Spanierman Gallery v. Arnold, No. 95-4467, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4113, at *14, quoting Editorial Musical Latino Americana, S.A. v. Mar Int'l Records, Inc., 829 F. Supp. 62, 66 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). Plaintiff argues that the weight to be afforded to a plaintiff's choice of forum is even greater in the present case — "plaintiff's choice of forum in a FELA case should be given greater weight than is originally [ sic] the situation." (Pl.'s Mem. in Opp. at 3.) Defendant argues, to the contrary, that the weight to be afforded to plaintiff's choice of forum is markedly lower in the present case because where "the conduct complained of occur[s] outside the district, plaintiff's choice of forum is entitled to little weight," and there is a "`local interest in having localized controversies decided at home.'" (Def.'s Mem. in Supp. at 6) (quoting Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 509 (1947)). I consider the parties' contentions in turn, namely (1) whether plaintiff's choice of forum is afforded greater weight in a case arising under FELA; and (2) whether plaintiff's choice of forum is afforded less weight where the chosen forum is not plaintiff's residence and is not the situs of the events underlying the claim.
Decisions in this district do not afford greater weight to plaintiff's forum choice in FELA cases. In De Jesus v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 725 F. Supp. 207, 208 (S.D.N.Y. 1989), Judge Cedarbaum observed:
Plaintiff's argument that the FELA venue provision should be interpreted as a mandate to accord plaintiff's forum choice exceptional weight is without merit. According to the Reviser's Notes to Section 1404, Section 1404(a) was drafted, in part, to provide a mechanism for the transfer of FELA cases brought under FELA's broad venue provision in inconvenient forums.See also Matthews v. New Jersey Transit Corp., No. 94942, 1995 WL 217493, at *2 (Apr. 12, 1995 S.D.N.Y.) ("Plaintiff's sole response to defendant's motion, namely that the FELA venue provision should be construed to increase the weight to be accorded plaintiff's choice of forum, is without merit. Not only has this Court applied § 1404(a) to FELA cases, . . . but the Revisor's Notes to Section 1404 indicate that § 1404(a) was in fact drafted, in part, to provide a mechanism for the transfer of FELA cases brought under FELA's broad venue provision in otherwise inconvenient fora."). Furthermore, a plaintiff's choice of forum, even in cases arising under FELA, is given less weight where the plaintiff chooses a forum that is not his residence and/or does not have a "material connection" to the events underlying the litigation. Matthews, 1995 WL 217493, at * 1; De Jesus, 725 F. Supp. at 208. Because plaintiff in this case is a resident of Connecticut and the events underlying the litigation occurred in Connecticut, I find that little weight should be afforded to plaintiff's choice of this New York forum.
Having determined that plaintiff's choice of forum in the present case is to be accorded little weight, I now consider the other factors outlined above in light of the relevant facts, as set forth in the parties' submissions.
Plaintiff was based at a Metro-North facility located in Bridgeport, Connecticut. The injury which forms the subject matter of this action was allegedly suffered while plaintiff was engaged in his duties as a signalman at the Grove Street Crossing in New Canaan, Connecticut. (Flynn Aff. at 1.) (Def.'s Reply at 1.) Plaintiff is a Connecticut resident and was treated for his injury by doctors in Stamford, Connecticut, and Bridgeport, Connecticut. (Flynn Aff. at 1.) (Def.'s Reply at 1, 2.) Witnesses will include plaintiff's treating doctors, both from Connecticut, and a liability witness. (Pl.'s Mem. in Opp. at 5.) Neither party has specified where this liability witness resides, although, based on the Supervisor's Injury Report, it appears likely that he is an employee of defendant and was, at minimum, working in Connecticut at the time of the alleged injury. (Diberardino Decl. Ex. C.)
Notwithstanding these several connections to Connecticut, plaintiff chose to sue Metro-North in the Southern District of New York. New York is the corporate headquarters for Metro-North and the location of its medical and legal departments. (Pl.'s Mem. in Opp. at 4-5.) Plaintiff submits that "[a]ll relevant documents including plaintiff's medical, payroll and personnel files are kept here in Manhattan and any documents relative to the liability in this case would be kept at the defendant's legal claims department." (Pl.'s Mem. in Opp. at 5.) Plaintiff submits further that witnesses will include individuals from "defendant's medical department and presumably plaintiff's department" who determined that plaintiff was "medically disqualified from his job" and are employed at defendant's headquarters in New York Id.
I turn now to evaluate these facts in light of the standards that are to be considered in determining whether a transfer of venue is warranted. I consider first the locus of operative facts and the convenience of witnesses, both of which are to be accorded significant weight:
`The core determination under § 1404(a) is the center of gravity of the litigation, a key test of which is the convenience of witnesses.' [citation omitted] `Courts routinely transfer cases when the principal events occurred, and the principal witnesses are located, in another district.' [citation omitted]Matthews, 1995 WL 217493, at * 1 (citations omitted). The locus of operative facts in this case is unquestionably Connecticut. The complained-of injury occurred and was medically attended to in Connecticut, the plaintiff was employed in Connecticut, and the plaintiff resides in Connecticut. This factor, therefore, weighs heavily in favor of locating the proceedings in Connecticut.
Plaintiff's treating doctors and the liability witness are likewise found in Connecticut. Plaintiff submits that his witnesses will include various individuals employed by defendant at its New York office, although plaintiff does not identify these individuals with particularity, or indicate where they reside. Accordingly there may be witnesses in both judicial districts. However, because the witnesses located in New York are employed by defendant and their participation in these proceedings is related to their work for defendant, it would not appear to pose as much of an inconvenience for them to participate in a neighboring judicial district as it might for those witnesses for whom participation in these proceedings does not arise out of the usual course of their business (as for plaintiff's treating physicians). I therefore find that the balance of conveniences with regard to witnesses likewise weighs in favor of locating the proceedings in Connecticut.
Where a defendant bases its application under § 1404(a) on the convenience of witnesses, it is generally required to submit specific information about the witnesses to be called and their availability, About.com, Inc. v. Aptimus, Inc., No. 01 Civ. 2106, 2001 WL 503251, at *2 (May 11, 2001 S.D.N.Y.), and is precluded from citing the inconvenience posed to plaintiff's witnesses in support of its application. Marks v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 109 F. Supp. 800, 803 (S.D.N.Y. 1953). However, I follow other courts in analyzing the convenience to witnesses more broadly where, as here, plaintiff has chosen a forum where he does not reside and where the locus of events did not occur. See De Jesus v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, 725 F. Supp. 207, 208 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (holding that a "non-resident plaintiff's choice of forum is clearly outweighed by the convenience of the parties and witnesses" where accident occurred in New Jersey, plaintiff was treated in New Jersey, plaintiff's physicians practiced in New Jersey, and eyewitness to accident lived in New Jersey).
The remaining factors are neutral. Although plaintiff has expressed a preference for the Southern District of New York, plaintiff is a resident of Connecticut and clearly would not be burdened in the least were proceedings to be conducted in Connecticut. See generally Bynum v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., No. 936180, 1994 WL 62848, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 1994) ("Since plaintiff resides in New Jersey, he cannot claim that transferring the action to New Jersey would cause undue hardship."). Likewise, defendant, although resisting jurisdiction in the Southern District of New York, is headquartered in New York and would not be unduly burdened were proceedings to be conducted here. I therefore find that there is no significant difference between the fora as regards convenience to the parties.
There is likewise no significant difference between the fora as regards the location of relevant documents and the ease of access to sources of proof. Defendant asserts in conclusory fashion that "the sources of proof are to be found [in Connecticut]." (Def.'s Mem. in Supp. at 6.) Although defendant has not clarified the grounds for its assertion with more particularity, I assume that it bases its conclusion on the reasoning that because the accident occurred in Connecticut, plaintiff works out of a Metro-North facility located in Connecticut, and plaintiff was treated in Connecticut, it follows that the documentation, underlying factual evidence, and other sources of proof are likewise located in Connecticut. I find this reasoning sound. It is logical to assume that relevant medical treatment records and the like will be retained at the site of treatment. Plaintiff, however, informs that, because defendant is headquartered in New York, "[c]opies of all liability and medical records," as well as plaintiff's personnel records, are on file in New York. (Pl.'s Mem. in Opp. at 5.) Because it appears that documents and other sources of proof are found both in Connecticut and in New York, I consider this factor to be neutral.
I next consider the relative means of the parties. Although plaintiff, as an individual suing a corporation, may be presumed to have less means than defendant, neither party has referenced the issue of financial hardship, nor do I find any reason to conclude that litigation of this action in either forum would present significantly increased costs for either party. If this factor is to be accorded any weight, it would weigh in favor of honoring plaintiff's choice of forum. Bynum, 1994 WL 62848, at *5 ("[S]ince plaintiff, as an individual, is presumably the party who is in the weaker financial position with regard to this litigation, and since plaintiff has chosen New York as the forum, the weight given this factor, if any, weighs in favor of maintaining this action in New York.") (emphasis added). Because neither party has made a showing of financial hardship, I consider this factor to be neutral.
Plaintiff has submitted that, with regard to the availability of process to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses and each forum's familiarity with governing law, the balance is "equal to either District." (Pl.'s Mem. in Opp. at 6.) I agree and do not find it necessary to address these factors individually.
Having examined each of the specified factors in detail, it is now left to determine whether "trial efficiency and the interest of justice" support a transfer to the District of Connecticut. Because the locus of operative facts weighs heavily in favor of transfer, and the convenience to witnesses somewhat so, I would easily conclude that transfer is warranted were it not for the fact that I must consider whether defendant has carried its burden of demonstrating that transfer is in the best interests of the litigation. Although I have determined that plaintiff's choice of forum is to be afforded only slight weight in the present action, "[t]he burden of demonstrating the desirability of transfer lies with the moving party," and even where, as here, the weight to be afforded to plaintiff's choice of forum is slight, low, defendant must still "sufficiently demonstrate that the plaintiff's choice of forum should be disturbed." Bynum, 1994 WL 62848, at *2, *4 (denying, in an action arising under FELA, a motion to transfer venue pursuant to § 1404(a) where plaintiff was not a resident of the proposed transferee district and the operative events did not take place there).
I conclude that Metro-North has made that showing in the case at bar. De Jesus, 725 F. Supp. 207, is closely on point. That case holds that a transfer of venue from this District to the District of New Jersey was warranted where an injured employee brought an FELA action against the railroad. Judge Cedarbaum reasoned, in language that mirrors the case at bar:
Plaintiff is a New Jersey resident who is employed by defendant in New Jersey. The accident occurred in New Jersey. Plaintiff was treated as a New Jersey medical center. All of plaintiff's physicians practice in New Jersey. The eyewitness to the accident is a New Jersey resident. Plaintiff's supervisor, who accompanied him to the medical center, is also a New Jersey resident. The only connection this lawsuit has with New York is that the defendant is doing business in New York, as it is in New Jersey.Id, at 208. The only difference between the facts set forth above and those in the present case is that plaintiff has stated that certain records and administrative employees (not eye witnesses to the injury or the events surrounding it) are located in Metro-North's New York office. I note that Metro North also maintains an operating facility at Bridgeport, Connecticut; plaintiff was based there. While the presence of certain of Metro-North's records and employees in New York reflect the fact that the defendant is doing business in this District, that circumstance is not sufficient to distinguish this case from De Jesus, with whose reasoning I agree and elect to follow.
Two additional points should be made. Plaintiff's treating physicians will be important witnesses at the trial. They practice medicine in Connecticut and treated plaintiff in that state. Treating physicians are characteristically reluctant to interrupt their practices to appear at trials, even in the localities where they treat their patients. It is not unusual for plaintiff's counsel to have to subpoena the plaintiff's treating physician, although counsel would prefer not to do that. In this regard, treating physicians may be contrasted with licensed physicians who make their living as medical expert witnesses, and are happy to appear in any court anywhere, so long as their fees are paid. While plaintiff's counsel says of plaintiff's treating doctors that "[n]one have indicated any objection or impediment to attending trial in New York City," Flynn Aff. at ¶ 6, counsel's statement stops short of saying that the physicians have been asked whether it would be acceptable for them and their other patients to have the physicians travel from Connecticut to this courthouse at the lower end of Manhattan to testify, rather than appearing at a trial held in, say, Bridgeport, one of the locations where the District of Connecticut holds court and one of the treating physicians maintains his practice (the other practices in Stamford). The demands inherent in a practicing physician's schedule tend to complicate a judge's conduct of a personal injury trial, and the potential for such a disruption should be minimized where possible.
Secondly, while the preference for a New York forum by a Connecticut plaintiff injured in Connecticut and dependent upon Connecticut witnesses may seem so counterintuitive as to alter the usual venue calculus, those circumstances are not unprecedented and do not change venue analysis, which focuses upon the question of whether the case has any significant connection with the "foreign" forum plaintiff selects.
De Jesus is illustrative and instructive on both these points. As noted supra, the case involved a railroad employee resident in New Jersey who was injured in New Jersey and treated by New Jersey physicians but chose to sue in this District; Judge Cedarbaum granted the defendant's motion to transfer the case to the District of New Jersey. In her opinion she said:
It is true that this court sits approximately ten miles from Newark, New Jersey as the crow flies. However, people do not travel as the crow flies and it is less time-consuming and more convenient for all the witnesses and parties to this case to travel to Newark than to New York City. In addition, the proximity of New York to New Jersey does not alter the fact that this case has no significant connection with this forum, while it has substantial connection with New Jersey,752 F. Supp. at 208-09 (emphasis added). The case at bar stands upon exactly the same footing. See also Matthews, 1995 WL 217493, at * 1-2 (granting transfer from the Southern District of New York to the District Court of New Jersey in a FELA case where plaintiff was a New Jersey resident, the accident occurred in New Jersey, defendant's principal place of business was New Jersey, and identified witnesses lived in New Jersey).
A transfer of venue from this District to the District of Connecticut is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) because the center of gravity of the case is clearly Connecticut, on balance the relevant factors militate in favor of transfer, and the litigation has no meaningful connection with New York or this District.
For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's motion is granted. The Clerk of the Court is directed to transfer the captioned case to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.
It is SO ORDERED.