Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-6741
December 2, 2002
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff, a citizen and a resident of Delaware, brought this personal injury action under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688, against the defendant which has its principal place of business in Cranford, New Jersey. The plaintiff alleges he was injured in an incident that occurred on June 7, 2000, while he was working for the defendant in Baltimore, Maryland.
The defendant has moved to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), claiming that the District of Delaware is the more appropriate forum. Opposing the transfer, the plaintiff argues that this case should remain in the district court he has chosen and where his attorney has an office. After considering all relevant factors and giving significant consideration to the plaintiff's preference, we conclude that this case should be transferred to the District of Delaware.
Legal Standard
Moving for transfer of venue, the defendant 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 convenient for the parties and witnesses; and, (3) the proposed transfer will be in the interests of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); Jumara v. State Farm Insurance Company, 55 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir. 1995); Shutte v. Armco Steel Corporation, et al., 431 F.2d 22, 23-24 (3d Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 910 (1970). Once the defendant establishes that the action could have been brought in the proposed district, the court must weigh several factors to determine whether the balance of conveniences tips in favor of transfer. Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879; see also, Coble v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 1992 WL 210325, *2 (E.D.Pa. 1992) citing Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947). Factors to be considered are: (1) the plaintiffs choice of forum; (2) the relative ease to access of sources of proof; (3) the availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses; (4) the possibility of viewing the accident site; (5) the practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive; and, (6) "public interest" factors, such as congestion of the court dockets and the relationship of the jury and the community to the occurrence. Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879.
The plaintiff does not dispute that this action could have been filed in the District of Delaware.
Section 1404(a) gives the district court broad discretion to decide a motion on a case-by-case basis. Nevertheless, we are mindful that such a motion is not to be granted liberally. See Shutte, 431 F.2d at 25, citing Handlos v. Litton Industries, Inc., 304 F. Supp. 347, 352 (E.D.Wis. 1969). Indeed, we start our analysis favoring the plaintiff's selection of venue.
Relevant Factors
Although the plaintiff's choice of venue is usually given paramount consideration, Shutte, 431 F.2d at 25, it is not dispositive. In fact, it is afforded less deference where the plaintiff does not live in the chosen forum and none of the operative facts occurred there. See, Duffy v. Camelback Ski Corp., No. 9200589, 1992 WL 151802, at *1 (E.D.Pa. 1992); Reed v. Weeks Marine, Inc., 166 F. Supp.2d 1052, 1057 (ED. Pa.2001); Coble v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 1992 WL 210325 at *2 (E.D.Pa. 1992); Wright, Miller Cooper, 15 Fed. Prac. Proc. Juris.2d § 3848 at 380-81.
Here, the plaintiff has offered no rationale for choosing a forum where he does not reside, where he was not treated for his injuries, and where the accident did not occur. The only connection to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is that plaintiff's counsel maintains an office in Philadelphia. However, this is not a relevant factor when considering a motion to transfer venue. See, Solomon v. Continental American Life Insurance Co., 472 F.2d 1043, 1047 (3d Cir. 1973); Extraordinary Properties, Inc. d/b/a Remax Extraordinary Properties v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, 2000 WL 66157 (E.D.Pa.2000).
Plaintiff resides in Newark, Delaware, which is much closer to the United States Courthouse in Wilmington than to the courthouse in Philadelphia. He was initially treated at two medical facilities in Baltimore, Maryland. His follow up medical treatment was with doctors in Delaware. These medical witnesses should not be burdened with the expense and inconvenience of traveling to Philadelphia rather than to the nearby courthouse in Wilmington, a more convenient location. Three other witnesses, one residing in New Jersey and two living in Florida, will be no more inconvenienced by appearing in Delaware than being summoned to Pennsylvania. The two vessels which were involved in this incident are currently located in Ocean City, Maryland, which is closer to the District of Delaware than to this court.
The plaintiff relies heavily, if not solely, on the defendant's alleged presence across the Delaware River in Camden, New Jersey. He claims that the defendant operates its primary facility there. To the contrary, an affidavit challenging the plaintiff's position confirms that the defendant's Camden facility, which had been the former site of its dredging operation, is essentially shut down and is presently being used only for the storage of non-operational equipment. The defendant's vessels which had been at Camden are now berthed in Jersey City, New Jersey and Houma, Louisiana. Thus, the defendant does not have a significant physical presence close to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Conclusion
Weighing the factors of conveniences and fairness against the plaintiff's choice of forum, the scale tips in favor of transferring this case to the District of Delaware where the plaintiff resides and the witnesses are easily accessible. Accordingly, defendant's motion to transfer venue is GRANTED and this case is TRANSFERRED to the District of Delaware.
An appropriate Order follows.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 2nd day of December, 2002, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue (Docket No. 5) and the Plaintiff's Response, it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED and this matter is TRANSFERRED to the District of Delaware for further proceedings.