Opinion
01 C 8705
June 20, 2002
ORDER Background
Plaintiff, a resident of Chicago, Illinois, filed this lawsuit against Defendant, a resident of Mishawaka, Indiana, based on an alleged breach of contract. Plaintiff contracted to repair Defendant's machine. Defendant shipped its machine to Chicago for repairs, but, Plaintiff alleges, failed to make full payment pursuant to the contract. Defendant maintains Plaintiff failed to complete the repairs and such repairs were completed instead in Valparaiso, Indiana. The machine is currently located in Mishawaka, Indiana. Defendant moved to dismiss the claim for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3) or, in the alternative, to transfer this case to the District Court for the Northern District of Indiana pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Defendant also filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's motions. For the reasons below, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, and GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Transfer. Defendant's Motion to Strike is DENIED as moot.
Analysis
Venue is proper in the district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). Venue may be proper in more than one district. Truserv Corp. v. Neff, 6 F. Supp.2d 790 (N.D. Ill. 1998). In a claim for breach of contract, venue is proper in the district or districts where the contractual duty was created and allegedly breached. Id. at 792. In deciding this motion, the Court must resolve factual conflicts in favor of the plaintiff, drawing any reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor. First Health Group, Corp. v. Sanderson Farms, Inc., No. 99 C 2926, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 965, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 31, 2000).
Venue in this case is proper in the Northern District of Illinois. Defendant shipped the machine to Plaintiff's plant in Chicago, Illinois. Compl. ¶ 4. Plaintiff alleges Defendant paid a portion of the contract price on "said work," but failed to pay the remainder. Compl. ¶ 5. The apparent work done and alleged failure to pay comprise the basic elements of Plaintiff's claim. Accordingly, venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois, and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
The Court may, however, transfer any civil action to another district, provided: venue is proper in the transferee and transferor districts; the transfer is for the convenience of the parties and witnesses; and the transfer is in the interest of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). "The weighing of factors for and against transfer necessarily involves a large degree of subtlety and latitude, and therefore, is committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge." Gen. Accident Ins. Co. v. Travelers Corp., 666 F. Supp. 1203, 1206 (N.D. Ill. 1987).
Defendant has satisfied the requirements for transfer. As discussed above, venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois. Venue is also proper in the Northern District of Indiana, as Defendant resides there. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a).
Sccond, a transfer to the Northern District of Indiana would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses. In making this determination, the Court considers: the plaintiffs choice of forum; the site of material events; the availability of evidence in each forum; and the residences of the parties and their ability to bear the expenses of trial in a particular forum. Truserv Corp., 6 F. Supp.2d at 793. Plaintiffs choice of forum, while persuasive, does not control. Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 31 (1988). In this case, the machine at issue is presently located in the Northern District of Indiana. Further, Defendant alleges several residents of the Northern District of Indiana, the only non-party witnesses identified thus far, completed the repairs. As the appearance of such witnesses is "often viewed as `the most important factor in the transfer balance,'" this weighs heavily in favor of a transfer. Truserv Corp., 6 F. Supp.2d at 794 (quoting Rose v. Franchetti, 713 F. Supp. 1203, 1214 (N.D. Ill. 1989)).
The Court must also consider the interest of justice, which includes the following factors: the speed with which a case will proceed to trial; a court's familiarity with the applicable law; and the desirability of resolving controversies in a particular locale. Amoco Oil Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 90 F. Supp.2d 958, 962 (N.D. Ill. 2000). Judges of the Northern District of Indiana are equally familiar with the legal issues in this case, and our respective dockets are similarly congested. This matter concerns a resident of and property currently located in the Northern District of Indiana, and it should be decided there. There is a factual dispute between the parties as to applicable law, which the Northern District of Indiana will resolve.
Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response is rendered moot by the Court's decision. However, the fact that Plaintiff's counsel filed the Response three weeks after an extended deadline, which was itself granted to Plaintiff two weeks after the initial deadline, supports the inference Plaintiff has been sloppy in its pleadings and presentation to this Court.
Conclusion
For the above-mentioned reasons, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED, but Defendant's Motion to Transfer is GRANTED. Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response is DENIED as moot.