Opinion
Civil Action No. 02-2727 Section "R"(4)
February 12, 2003
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is defendants motion for change of venue. For the following reasons, the Court denies defendant's motion.
I. Background
On November 7, 2001, plaintiff Charlotte Martin was returning to New Orleans, Louisiana from Martinez, California on Amtrak. Due to track construction, Amtrak asked plaintiff to disembark the train in Oakland and travel by bus to San Jose, where plaintiff would then resume her travel by way of train. Plaintiff alleges that she re-injured a recently replaced hip while boarding the bus. She alleges that the injuries were caused by the bus driver, who pushed plaintiff from the rear while helping her onto the bus. Following the accident, plaintiff underwent surgery in California.
Plaintiff purchased the round-trip ticket from defendant Amtrak in Louisiana.
Amtrak asserts that the bus driver was employed by Royal Coach, Inc., the corporation that Amtrak contracted with for the provision of transportation of Amtrak passengers. Royal Coach, a California corporation with its principal place of business in California, has been named a third-party defendant in this matter. Plaintiff is a resident of Louisiana. Amtrak, which was created by an Act of Congress, is a foreign corporation with its principal place of business in Washington, D.C.
II. Discussion
Amtrak moves the Court to transfer this lawsuit to the appropriate district in California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a), which provides: "For 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." Given that the accident took place in Oakland, California, the Court concludes that the appropriate district in California, if any, would be the Northern District of California. It is clear that the plaintiff could have brought this action in the Northern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Therefore, the question facing the Court is whether transfer is convenient for the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.
The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating why the case should be transferred to an alternate forum. Time, Inc. v. Manning, 366 F.2d 690, 698 (5th Cir. 1966). Because the decision to transfer requires an "individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness," it is a decision that ultimately falls within the district court's sound discretion. Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corporation, 487 U.S. 22, 29, 108 S.Ct. 2239, 2244 (1988) (quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622, 84 S.Ct. 805, 812 (1964)); see also Peteet v. Dow Chemical Co., 868 F.2d 1428, 1436 (5th Cir. 1989). In deciding whether to transfer a case pursuant to § 1404(a), courts consider the private and public interest factors articulated by the Supreme Court in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508, 67 S.Ct. 839, 843 (1947). Private factors relate to the convenience of the litigants and include: (1) the plaintiff's choice of forum; (2) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (3) the cost of obtaining attendance of witnesses and other trial expenses; (4) the place of the alleged wrong; and (5) the possibility of delay and prejudice if transfer is granted. Id. Public interest factors, on the other hand, include (1) the administrative difficulties resulting from court congestion; (2) the relationship to the litigation of the community from which jurors will be drawn; (3) the local interest in having localized controversies decided at home; and (4) choice of law issues. Id.
Plaintiff chose to file this lawsuit in a state court located within the Eastern District of Louisiana. "[U]nless the balance [of private and public interest factors] is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed." Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 508, 67 S.Ct. at 843. Amtrak principally relies on the location of the accident and the location of witnesses and trial exhibits to establish that the factors weigh strongly in favor of transfer. Although the accident took place in California, however, the witnesses and trial exhibits appear to be split between the two districts.
Two key witnesses — plaintiff and plaintiff's current physician — reside in Louisiana, and Amtrak has failed to establish that more than two key witnesses reside in California. The moving party must make "`a specific showing of the necessary witnesses and what their testimony will be' to warrant a transfer of venue." Blanchard Co. v. Spectrum Numismatics, Inc., 1994 WL 606191, *5 (E.D.La. 1994)) (quoting Southern Investors II v. Commuter Aircraft Corp., 520 F. Supp. 212, 218-19 (M.D.La. 1981)). Defendant notes that plaintiff's relative — Lee Ryan — resides in California and will testify regarding plaintiff's rehabilitation following her surgery. Defendant also notes that Dr. Sean Devine, the physician who attended to plaintiff after her alleged injury, resides in California. Defendant has failed, however, to describe the content of Dr. Devine's testimony. Nor has defendant described the content of any other testimony that might be offered by a witness located in California. without knowing the content of the testimony, the Court is unable to determine the necessity of the witness to defendant's case.
Amtrak presumes that the bus driver resides in California, but does not, at this point in the litigation, even know the bus driver's name.
As to potential trial exhibits, plaintiff's medical records are split, between offices in Louisiana and in California. The remaining exhibits cited by Amtrak, including the expenses and records of the ambulance service in California, the railroad itinerary, and a copy of the tickets purchased by plaintiff, are insufficient to tilt the balance in favor of transfer.
Three final issues bear mention. First, the Court's docket is not congested. Second, although the Court may ultimately be required to apply California law, the Court is not persuaded that the difficulty of the legal issues presented by this matter weighs in favor of transfer. Third, and finally, Amtrak asserts that the matter should be transferred to California because the Court may not have personal jurisdiction over third-party defendant Royal Coach. Royal Coach has not filed a motion to dismiss on these grounds. It would be inappropriate to permit today's decision to be influenced by speculation as to the merit of such a motion.
In summary, the Court finds that Amtrak has failed to establish that the private and public interest factors articulated in Gulf Oil weigh strongly in favor of transfer. While it is true that the accident took place in California and that plaintiff underwent surgery in California, witnesses and trial exhibits are split between the two venues. On balance, plaintiff's choice of forum should not be disturbed.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies defendant's motion for change of venue.