Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-2903, SECT. "T" (5).
April 14, 2003
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion filed by the Defendant, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (hereinafter "MetLife"), to Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Court received an opposition memorandum from the Plaintiff, Michael W. Morgan. After having reviewed the memoranda filed by the parties, the record, the law, and the appropriate jurisprudence, this Court is now ready to rule.
I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE
This action arises out of a claim for wrongful termination of employment brought by the Plaintiff, Michael W. Morgan, against his former employer, MetLife. MetLife is a New York Corporation having its principal place of business in New York. Plaintiff Michael Morgan resided in Louisiana from the years 1972 to 1990. On or about September 9, 2000, Mr. Morgan accepted an offer of employment from MetLife and began to work for them in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Prior to moving to Brazil, Mr. Morgan purchased a home in Mandeville, Louisiana. He continues to own his Mandeville home. Mr. Morgan worked and lived in Brazil until MetLife terminated his employment in September 2001. He then came to Louisiana and resided with his son until he secured his current position in Florida, where he lives and works today.
The Plaintiff filed suit against MetLife in the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana, on August 21, 2002. MetLife removed the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on September 20, 2002. Defendants subsequently filed the present motion to transfer this action to the Southern District Court of New York.
II. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
The Defendants argue that the plaintiff currently resides in Florida, and would therefore be inconvenienced no matter if the forum were Louisiana or New York. They also contend that most of the discovery will occur in New York, because the majority of the physical evidence and, in particular, an unnamed "key non-party witness" are located in and around New York.
The Plaintiff claims that he only accepted his current position in Florida because it is the only place that he could find work. Several of his family members still reside in Louisiana, and Mr. Morgan hopes to return to his Mandeville home to retire. He attaches great significance to the fact that he purchased his home pursuant to an International Assignment Policy by MetLife that favors retention of housing by expatriate employees and their family in their home country. He also believes it is relevant that upon his termination, MetLife shipped his belongings to Louisiana.
III. LAW AND ANALYSIS
A. Law on Transfers of Venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404:
A district court may transfer any civil action to any other district in which it might have been brought for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or if such transfer is found to be in the interest of justice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Courts have performed a two-pronged analysis before granting a motion to transfer venue. The first inquiry is whether the district is one in which the action could have originally been brought. The second is whether the transfer of venue will "serve the convenience of the parties and the interests of justice." Alix v. Shoney's Inc., 1997 WL 66771, *2 (E.D.La..) (citing Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 342-44, 80 S.Ct. 1084, 1089-91, 4 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1959)).
In determining whether to transfer venue in a particular case, "the court must exercise its discretion in light of the particular circumstances of the case." Hanby v. Shell Oil Co., 144 F. Supp.2d 673, 676 (E.D.Tex. March 5, 2001) (citing Radio Santa FE v. Sena, 687 F. Supp. 284, 287 (E.D.Tex. 1988)). In doing so, the court must balance two categories of interests: 1) the so-called private interests, which take into account the convenience of the litigants, and 2) the public interests, which take into account the fair and efficient administration of justice. See Hanby, 144 F. Supp.2d 673, 767 (citing Robertson v. Kiamichi RR Co., L.L.C., 42 F. Supp.2d 651, 655 (E.D.Tex. 1999)).
In balancing the aforementioned categories of interests, courts are to consider the following factors:
[Private or] Convenience factors, [which] include: (1) plaintiff's choice of forum; (2) convenience of parties and witnesses; (3) place of the alleged wrong; (4) location of counsel; (5) cost of obtaining the attendance of witnesses; (6) accessibility and location of sources of proof; and (7) possibility of delay and prejudice if transfer is granted.
Public interest factors, [which] include: (1) administrative difficulties caused by court congestion; (2) local interest in adjudicating local disputes; (3) unfairness of burdening citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty; and (4) avoidance of unnecessary problems in conflict of laws.Hanby, at 676-677 (quoting Robertson v. Kiamichi RR Co., L.L.C., 42 F. Supp.2d 651, 655 (E.D.Tex. 1999)); see also Willis v. Parrot, Civ.A. No. 96-691, 1996 WL 337241, at * 4 (E.D.La. June 17, 1996).
Unless these factors balance heavily in favor of the defendants, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed. See Willis, 1996 WL 337241, at * 4 (citing Schexnider v. McDermott Intern., Inc., 817 F.2d 1159, 1163 (5th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 977, 108 S.Ct. 488, 98 L.Ed.2d 486 (1987); Peteet v. Dow Chemical Co., 868 F.2d 1428, 1436 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 935, 110 S.Ct. 328, 107 L.Ed.2d 318 (1989)). The plaintiff's choice of forum "is held to be `highly esteemed,' and entitled to great weight, especially if the forum he chooses is in the district in which he resides." Sorrels Steel Co., Inc., 651 F. Supp. 623, 628 (S.D.Miss. 1986) (quoting Time, Inc. v. Manning, 366 F.2d 690, 698 (5th Cir. 1966)). "The plaintiff's privilege of choosing his venue, at the very least, places the burden on the defendants to demonstrate why the forum should be changed." Id. at 629 (citing Time, Inc., 366 F.2d at 698). Therefore, the defendant moving for a change of venue pursuant to Section 1404(a) must show both that the original forum is inconvenient for itself and that the plaintiff would not be substantially inconvenienced by a transfer. See Id. (citing Wright, Miller Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3849, at 408 (1986)).
B. The Court's Analysis
It is uncontested that this action could have been properly brought in the Southern District of New York. We must now consider whether the transfer of venue will "serve the convenience of the parties and the interests of justice." Alix, 1997 WL 66771 at *2.
Although deference is generally given to the Plaintiff's choice of forum, that factor is given less weight if the Plaintiff happens to reside outside the forum. Although Mr. Morgan does own property here in Louisiana, it is uncontested that he currently lives and works in Florida. Furthermore, the Plaintiff's choice of forum is given even less weight if the operative facts occurred outside the forum. It is again uncontested that the incidents which precipitated the claim upon which this action is based occurred either in Sao Paulo or New York, or both, but not in Louisiana.
It is also uncontested that the majority of the documentation that will be needed for this action is located in New York. Although the Plaintiff claims that the cost of transferring the records will be minimal, this factor weighs in the Defendant's favor.
Both parties contend that the cost of obtaining the attendance of witnesses would be lessened in their respective choice of venue. The Plaintiffs have listed a number of potential witnesses who reside in and around the New Orleans area, and for whom venue in the Eastern District would be most convenient. Conversely, the Defendants aver that a "key non-party witness" and a number of other witnesses reside within the subpoena power of the Southern District of New York. Therefore, this factor does not weight heavily in either party's favor. Additionally, neither party has a strong argument for the convenience of counsel or the possibility of delay and prejudice if the transfer is granted. Specifically, since the Plaintiff will be required to travel whether Louisiana or New York is the venue, the Court does not find that he will be unduly prejudiced by adjudicating in New York.
With regard to the public factors, the relative administrative difficulties are the same in both jurisdictions. The claim relates to the conduct of a New York corporation, and actions of its employees in both New York and Brazil. Therefore, New York has a local interest in the subject matter. For the same reasons, Louisiana citizens who have no interest in the dispute should not be unduly burdened with jury duty. Finally, although it is not before this Court to decide which jurisdiction's conflict of law principles to apply, it is clear that Louisiana law is much less likely to be used than the law of New York.
Therefore, since the Defendant has met the burden of showing that a majority of the public and private interest factors weigh heavily in their favor, transfer to the Southern District of New York serves the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and best serves the interests of justice.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Transfer of Venue to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed by the Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., is hereby GRANTED.