Opinion
C.A. No. S15C-05-006 RFS
02-14-2017
Re: Nancy Hammer v. Howard Medical, Inc., Howard Industries, Inc.
Nancy Hammer P.O. Box 492 Nassau, Delaware 19969 Dennis L. Schrader, Esq. R. Eric Hacker, Esq. Morris James Wilson Halbrook & Bayard, LLP 107 W. Market Street P.O. Box 690 Georgetown, Delaware 19947
RICHARD F. STOKES JUDGE Nancy Hammer
P.O. Box 492
Nassau, Delaware 19969 Dennis L. Schrader, Esq.
R. Eric Hacker, Esq.
Morris James Wilson Halbrook & Bayard, LLP
107 W. Market Street
P.O. Box 690
Georgetown, Delaware 19947 Upon Plaintiff's Motion for Transfer of Venue to a Different County.
Denied. Dear Parties:
This is my decision on Plaintiff Nancy Hammer's ("Hammer") Motion for Transfer of Venue from Sussex County to New Castle County. For the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED.
Hammer initiated this action in May 2015 by bringing claims related to her alleged employment contract with the Defendants, Howard Medical, Inc. and Howard Industries, Inc. ("Howard") in the Sussex County Superior Court. Now, over a year and a half after the initiation of the case, Hammer moves to transfer the case to New Castle County. She argues that transferring the case to New Castle County will be easier for her, as she is receiving continuing medical care in that area. Further, Hammer claims that there will be no burden placed on Howard or the Court by moving the location of the action. According to Hammer, there will be no burden placed on defense counsel as a result of this move because the law firm has an office in Wilmington, Delaware. Also, Hammer asserts that, since the case is in the early stages of litigation, there will be no undue delay or prejudice to the Defendants or Court. Thus, she moves to have the case moved from Georgetown to Wilmington.
It should be clarified that Hammer is not seeking a change of venue, but rather a change of location. Venue is proper in all three of the Superior Court locations within the State of Delaware. However, it is well-established that the location of the action can be transferred from one county to another "where the consideration of the equities involved indicates that such a change is desirable." Additionally, "the Plaintiff's choice of forum is entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed unless there are factors that strongly militate against it." Altering the location of the case is a matter of judicial discretion.
Connell v. Ammons, 2011 WL 4827581, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Sept. 6, 2011).
Id.
Id.
Id. --------
Hammer has made no showing that a consideration of the equities demonstrates a need to transfer the case to New Castle County or that factors are present that strongly militate against the action remaining in Sussex County. While she may prefer for the litigation to take place in New Castle County, Hammer has claimed nothing that proves Sussex County is an unsuitable location. As a resident of Sussex County, it will not be inconvenient for Hammer to remain in the area to litigate the case, even if she is receiving medical treatment in New Castle County. Moreover, such a transfer would require all of the parties to travel to New Castle County for the trial, which would only make the trial less convenient for all involved. Lastly, it should be noted that moving the action will not alter the attorneys, witnesses, or judge involved. In sum, Hammer has failed to prove that New Castle County is a significantly more suitable location for this case than Sussex County.
Based on the foregoing, this Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
/s/_________
Richard F. Stokes, Judge Cc: Prothonotary
Nancy Hammer
Dennis Schrader, Esq.
R. Eric Hacker, Esq.