Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:00CV285-D-B.
March 23, 2001.
OPINION
This cause is before the court on the Defendants, Safety National Casualty Corporation's and Safety Mutual Casualty Corporation's motion to transfer this cause to the United States District Court of Nevada. The Plaintiff, Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., thereafter filed a motion to stay these proceeding and to compel the Defendant, W.R. Gibbens, Inc., to arbitrate. Upon due consideration, the court finds the Defendants' motion to transfer is well-taken and shall be granted and the Plaintiff's motion to stay these proceedings shall be denied.
Factual Background
This cause was originally filed in the Circuit Court of Tunica County, Mississippi, by Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., d/b/a Showboat Las Vegas (hereafter Harrah), against Safety National Casualty Corporation, Safety Mutual Casualty Corporation (collectively hereafter Safety) and W.R. Gibbens, Inc. (hereafter Gibbens) on October 30, 2000. The Defendants removed the case to this Court via Notice of Removal filed on or about December 11, 2000.
This claim arises out of a self insurance agreement which Harrah maintained for its operations in Nevada. Gibbens had an agreement to act as a third party administrator in Nevada for Harrah's Nevada operations. Said agreement was entered into in the state of Nevada and was to be fully and wholly performed in the State of Nevada pursuant to Nevada law.
Mary Gerhardt, Harrah's employee, allegedly received a workers' compensation injury in 1989 while working in Nevada, which is the underlying basis for this cause. All of Ms. Gerhardt's medical treatment for this injury was administered in Nevada. Consequently, Nevada is the location of the witnesses, including the treating physicians and the documents, including the medical records pertaining to Ms. Gerhard's injury.
Gibbens has indicated to this court that they have no objection to Safety's motion to transfer. Harrah did not respond to Safety's motion.
Motion for Transfer of Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
For the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interests of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). "Decisions to effect 1404(a) transfers are committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and review of a transfer is limited to an abuse of that discretion." Mills v.Beech Aircraft Corp., Inc., 886 F.2d 758, 761 (5th Cir. 1989) (quoting Jarvis Christian College v. Exxon Corp., 845 F.2d 523, 528 (5th Cir. 1988)). The purpose of the venue transfer statute is to "prevent the waste of time, energy, and money and to protect litigants, witnesses, and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense." Gundle Lining Const. v. Fireman's Fund Ins., 844 F. Supp. 1163, 1165 (S.D.Tex. 1994) (citing Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616, 84 S.Ct. 805, 11 L.Ed.2d 945 (1964)). In order to establish that transfer is appropriate, this court would have to find that Safety has carried their burden to establish that the balance of convenience and justice weigh heavily in favor of the transfer. Gundle, 844 F. Supp. at 1165.
There exists a veritable plethora of factors this court may consider in making a § 1404(a) determination, which include: 1) the convenience of the parties; 2) the convenience of material witnesses; 3) the availability of process to compel the presence of unwilling witnesses; 4) the cost of obtaining the presence of witnesses; 5) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; 6) calendar congestion; 7) where the events in issue took place; and 8) the interests of justice in general. Id. at 1165.
There is an appropriateness, too, in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the state law that must govern the case, rather than having a court in some other forum untangle problems in conflict of laws, and in law foreign to itself. Jury duty is a burden that ought not to be imposed upon the people of a community which has no relation to the litigation. Embree v. Cutter Biologics, 760 F. Supp. 103, 105 (N.D.Miss. 1991) (citing Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947) superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Gazis v. John S. Latsis (USA), Inc., 729 F. Supp. 979 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)). While they were articulated in the context of deciding a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, they are helpful in evaluating motions pursuant to § 1404(a) as well.); see also Apache Products Co. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 154 F.R.D. 650, 653 (S.D.Miss. 1994) (listing factors for consideration in 1404(a) analysis).
In the case at bar, it is the opinion of the undersigned that Safety has established that these factors overall weigh heavily in favor of transfer. Normally, a plaintiff's choice of forum is entitled to substantial deference by the court. Apache Prods., 154 F.R.D. at 653. However, while Harrah's choice of forum may be entitled to some degree of greater consideration, it is by no means determinative. Gundle, 844 F. Supp. at 1165 (noting plaintiff's choice of forum not entitled to "the decisive weight it enjoyed under the doctrine of forum non conveniens."). "[W]here the defendant does show that another forum is significantly more convenient for the parties and witnesses, and that there appear to be no substantial impediments otherwise to transfer, the plaintiff's choice of forum must give way and the court should not hesitate to order a transfer." Apache Prods., 154 F.R.D. at 653; see also Gundle, 844 F. Supp. at 1165 (stating "choice of forum is only one of many factors to consider.").
When looking to the remaining factors, Nevada has a much more significant relationship to this action. For example, the majority of witnesses and most of the evidence is there, Nevada law has a greater potential for application to the case, the Nevada court has a greater ability to compel the presence of unwilling witnesses, and the occurrence of most, if not all, of the events relevant to this cause was in Nevada. All of these weigh in favor of transfer. The location of witnesses and evidence also "necessarily implicate[s] the ease of conducting merits-related discovery in a location which is near the relevant witnesses and documents." Enplanar, Inc. v. Marsh, 11 F.3d 1284, 1291 (5th Cir. 1994). Even when considering the relative worth of each element, these factors in the aggregate substantially outweigh Harrah's choice of forum in this matter. Therefore, Safety's motion to transfer shall be granted and this cause shall be transferred to the United States District Court of Nevada.
Motion to Stay Proceeding and Compel Arbitration
Harrah filed its motion to stay these proceedings and to compel Gibbens to arbitrate more than a month after Safety's motion to transfer. The court, therefore, finds that it is precluded from ruling on Harrah's motion due to the undersigned's aforementioned opinion that transfer to Nevada is proper. Therefore, Harrah's motion to stay the proceeding and compel Safety to arbitrate shall be denied as this court lacks the proper jurisdiction.
A separate order in accordance with this opinion shall issue this day.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO TRANSFER AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDING AND COMPEL ARBITRATION
Pursuant to a memorandum opinion issued this day, it is hereby ordered that
• the Defendants' motion to transfer this cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the United States District Court of Nevada (docket entry #6) is GRANTED;
• the Plaintiff's motion to stay the proceeding and compel arbitration (docket entry #10) is DENIED; and
• this case is transferred to the United States District Court of Nevada.