Summary
according less deference to the plaintiff's choice of forum when he did not reside there and the accident occurred elsewhere
Summary of this case from Johnson v. Big Lots Stores, Inc.Opinion
Civil Action No. 03-2791, Section R(1).
July 26, 2004
ORDER AND REASONS
Defendant Yazoo River Towing, Inc. (Yazoo) moves the Court to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Western Division in Vicksburg, Mississippi. Plaintiff Joey Roulston opposes the transfer.
I. BACKGROUND
Joey Roulston worked for Yazoo River Towing as a Jones Act Seaman aboard the M/V Melvin L. King. Roulston alleges that he injured his shoulder and left arm at work on or about January 27, 2003. Roulston sued Yazoo in this Court on October 3, 2003, alleging negligence, unseaworthiness, and unsafe working conditions under the Jones Act and general maritime law. ( See Pl.'s Compl., at ¶ 6.) Yazoo moves the Court to transfer this action to the Southern District of Mississippi, Western Division under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Roulston opposes the transfer.
II. LAW
The defendant who brings a motion to transfer venue must demonstrate why the case should be transferred to an alternate forum. Trevino v. Louisiana-I Gaming, 2002 WL 27769, No. Civ. A. 00-3110, at *1 (E.D. La. 2002) (citing Time, Inc. v. Manning, 366 F.2d 690, 698 (5th Cir. 1966)). Under Section 1404(a), the Court may transfer an action to any other district where the plaintiff could have filed suit for the convenience of parties and witnesses. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The defendant must first demonstrate that the plaintiff could have brought the action transferee court initially. See Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 343-44 (1960); In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 203 (5th Cir. 2004). The transferee forum must have personal jurisdiction over the defendant. See Trevino, 2002 WL 27769, at *1. The defendant must then show that a transfer of venue will serve the convenience of the parties, the witnesses, and the interests of justice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
In deciding a transfer motion, the district court must consider both private and public interest factors. Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947). The private interest factors include (1) the plaintiff's choice of forum; (2) the situs of material events; (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 the court grants the transfer. See Laitram Corp. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 120 F. Supp.2d 607, 608 (E.D. La. 2000). The public interest factors include (1) the administrative difficulties resulting from court congestion; (2) the relationship of the community from which jurors will be drawn to the litigation; (3) the local interest in having localized controversies decided at home; and (4) choice of law issues. See id. The plaintiff's choice of forum is usually entitled to deference. Peteet v. Dow Chem. Co., 868 F.2d 1428, 1436 (5th Cir. 1989). As a general rule, if the balance of public and private interest factors does not strongly favor the movant, "the district court will not disturb a plaintiff's choice of forum." Trevino, 2002 WL 27769, at *2 (citing In re McDonnell-Douglas Corp., 647 F.2d 515, 517 (5th Cir. 1981)).
III. ANALYSIS
A. Jurisdiction
The Court must first determine whether Roulston could have sued Yazoo in the Southern District of Mississippi. Roulston sues under the Jones Act. The Jones Act provides for venue in the district where the defendant resides or where his principal office is located. 46 App. U.S.C. § 688; see also Pure Oil Co. v. Suarez, 384 U.S. 202, 203 (1966) (noting that "although [46 U.S.C. § 688] is framed in jurisdictional terms, the Court has held that it refers only to venue"). The defendant resides in any judicial district that has personal jurisdiction over it at the time the action commenced. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) See also Pure Oil Co., 384 U.S. at 204 (applying the definition of residence in § 1391(c) to the Jones Act venue provision).
The Court finds that Roulston could have sued Yazoo in the Southern District of Mississippi. The Southern District of Mississippi has personal jurisdiction over Yazoo because Yazoo maintains its offices and principal place of business in the district. (Def.'s Mot. Transfer at ¶ 1.) Roulston does not dispute that he could have sued Yazoo in the Southern District of Mississippi.
B. Private and Public Interest Factors
The Court must next determine whether a transfer will serve the convenience of the parties, the witnesses, and the interests of justice. The parties do not dispute the following facts:
1. Roulston is a resident of Alabama.
2. The alleged incident occurred on the Tenn-Tom River in West Point, Mississippi.
3. Roulston's treating physicians reside in Columbus, Mississippi and Meridian, Mississippi, respectively. The hospitals where Roulston received treatment are located in Columbus, Mississippi and Meridian, Mississippi.1. Private Interest Factors (a) Plaintiff's Choice of Forum
Roulston argues that the Court should defer to his choice of forum. Although Plaintiff's choice of forum is entitled to deference, it is not dispositive. In re Horseshoe Entm't, 337 F.3d 429, 434 (5th Cir. 2003). Further, the Court will accord less than the customary degree of deference to the plaintiff's forum selection when "the operative facts of the dispute occur outside plaintiff's chosen forum," and no factor weighs in favor of retaining the suit in the chosen forum. Icon Indus. Controls Corp. v. Cimetrix, Inc., 921 F. Supp. 375, 384 (M.D. La. 1996); see also Day v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., 196 F. Supp.2d 435, 436 (E.D. Tex. 2001) (according less deference to plaintiff's choice of forum when none of the other factors weighed in favor of retaining case); Laitram, 120 F. Supp.2d at 610 (same); Sonic Drive-in of Alexandria v. Dronet, 968 F. Supp. 303, 305 (E.D. La. 1997) (same); Lands v. St. Louis S.W.R.R. Co., 648 F. Supp. 322, 325 (E.D. Tex. 1986) (same). The Court will also accord less deference to the plaintiff's choice when the plaintiff does not reside in the chosen forum. See Marrogi, 2002 WL 987386 at *2; Morgan, 2003 WL 1903344, at *3. Here, Roulston does not live in the Eastern District of Louisiana, and his accident and treatment did not occur here. Accordingly, his choice of forum is entitled to less than the customary degree of deference.
(b) Situs of Material Events
As the Court has stated, the alleged incident occurred and Roulston underwent treatment in Mississippi.
(c) Convenience of the Witnesses
Roulston argues that witness convenience is unclear because he does not know the location of his fellow crew members. (Pl.'s Opp'n Transfer at 2). Defendant's president, on the other hand, attests that most of the crew members of M/V Melvin L. King are domiciled in the proposed transferee district. ( See Def.'s Mot. Transfer, Ex. A at 2.) In addition, the officers and record custodians of Yazoo River Towing, Inc. reside in the transferee district. ( See id.) The Court finds that Yazoo has carried its burden as to the convenience of the crew members.
Roulston's healthcare providers live in Columbus, Mississippi and Meridian, Mississippi. Both cities are outside of the subpoena power of the Southern District of Mississippi. Yazoo has made no showing of the distance between those cities and New Orleans in comparison to their distances from Vicksburg. The Court finds that Yazoo has not met its burden as to the convenience of the healthcare providers.
(d) Convenience of the Parties
Yazoo River Towing, Inc.'s offices are approximately five miles from the United States Courthouse in Vicksburg. Roulston resides in Leeds, Alabama, which is approximately 290 miles from Vicksburg and 357 miles from New Orleans. Litigation in Vicksburg is clearly more convenient for Yazoo. Based on the distances reported, litigation in the Southern District of Mississippi should not be more inconvenient for Roulston than litigation in New Orleans.
(e) Delay or Prejudice
When "the action is still in the early stages of litigation, any delay resulting in the transfer to the proper forum should not prejudice either party." Peters v. Milton Hall Surgical Associates, No. Civ. A. 03-1254, 2003 WL 22174274, at * 2 (E.D. La. Sept. 11, 2003). Here, the action is in early stages of litigation, and delay should not prejudice either party.
2. Public Interest Factors
The Court finds that the public interest weighs in favor of having localized controversies resolved at home. The events of this action occurred in Mississippi. There is no connection between the lawsuit and the Eastern District of Louisiana. Mississippi has a greater interest in this controversy, and the case should be transferred there.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendant's motion to transfer venue.