Opinion
Civil Action No. 09-495-JJF.
November 20, 2009
Alan M. Fisch, Esquire, Jason F. Hoffman, Esquire, Coke Morgan Stewart, Esquire, and R. William Sigler, Esquire of Kaye Scholer LLP, Washington, D.C. Richard L. Horwitz, Esquire and David E. Moore, Esquire of Potter, Anderson, Corroon LLP, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorneys for Plaintiff.
J. David Wharton, Esquire, Mark J. Peterson, Esquire, and Nora M. Kane, Esquire of Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP, Omaha, Nebraska. Keith H. Orum, Esquire and Mark D. Roth, Esquire of Orum Roth LLC, Chicago, Illinois. Jack B. Blumenfeld, Esquire and Julie Heaney, Esquire of Morris, Nichols, Arsht Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorneys for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending before the Court is a Motion To Transfer (D.I. 18) to the Northern District of Illinois, filed by Defendant Card Activation Technologies, Inc. Plaintiff, Stored Value Solutions, Inc., opposes the Motion. (D.I. 23.) For the reasons discussed below, the Motion will be denied.
I. THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR CHANGE OF VENUE
A change of venue or "transfer" may be granted by a district court 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.Id. Section 1404(a) is not complicated. It instructs a district court that it may transfer a case if:
1) the case could have been filed initially in the district the court is considering transferring the case to;
2) the parties and witnesses for both sides of the case would find it more convenient to litigate in the district under consideration by the court; and
3) the transfer to another court for the convenience of the parties and witnesses is in the interest of justice, or to state another way, it is fair and reasonable to send the parties and witnesses to another federal district for convenience purposes.
From these simple, straightforward principles, a legend of case law has developed concerning the transfer of venue for the convenience of the parties and witnesses. In the Third Circuit district courts are required to analyze and weigh a set of eleven (11) private/public factors. Those factors are best set forth inJumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873 (3d Cir. 1995):
The Private Factors:
1) The plaintiff's forum preference as manifested in the original choice;
2) the defendant's preference;
3) whether the claim arose elsewhere;
4) the convenience of the parties;
5) the convenience of the witnesses, but only to the extent that the witnesses may actually be unavailable for trial in one of the fora; and
6) the location of books and records, but only to the extent that they may actually be unavailable for trial in one of the fora.The Public Factors:
1) The enforceability of the judgment;
2) practical considerations that could make the trial easy, expeditious, or inexpensive;
3) the relative administrative difficulty in the two fora resulting from court congestion;
4) the local interest; and
5) the public policies of the fora.
II. THE PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
The parties' contentions concerning these private and public factors are:
Private Factors — Parties' Contentions Public Factors — Parties' Positions
Plaintiff Defendant 1. Plaintiff's Plaintiff's choice of Plaintiff's choice preference as forum is due great of forum should manifested by its deference under Third receive choice of forum Circuit precedent. considerably less Additionally, the deference because "home turf" argument Plaintiff is not is not applicable physically located because Plaintiff is in Delaware and incorporated in thus it is not Delaware. Plaintiff's "home turf." 2. The defendant's No argument made. Defendant prefers preference transfer. 3. Whether the No argument made. No argument made. plaintiff's claim arose elsewhere 4. The convenience The Delaware Court is The convenience of of the parties at least as the parties weighs convenient as the in favor of Illinois Court. transfer because of Additionally, the extensive Defendant's litigation that has incorporation in already taken place Delaware makes it in the Illinois impossible for Court. Defendant to argue that it is not convenient to litigate in its home state, Delaware. 5. The convenience There is no evidence The ease of travel of the witnesses, that any witnesses to Chicago will but only to the are unable or make travel easier extent that the unwilling to come to for any out of town witnesses may Delaware and witnesses in actually be traveling to Delaware traveling to unavailable for is not more difficult Illinois as opposed trial in one of than traveling to to Delaware. the fora Illinois. 6. The location of Defendant does not One of Defendant's books and records, contend that records counsel is located but only to the could not be produced in Illinois and has extent that they in Delaware or to physical custody of may actually be Plaintiff's counsel. the files. unavailable for trial in one of the fora Plaintiff Defendant 1. The No argument made. No argument made. enforceability of the judgment 2. Practical The Delaware Court is Judicial economy considerations on a faster track dictates a transfer that could make than the Illinois so that multiple the trial easy, Court in deciding the cases stemming from expeditious, or related matters. the same inexpensive transaction are before the same court. 3. The relative One of the reasons The Delaware administrative Plaintiff filed this Court's docket is difficulty in the case in the Delaware not more efficient two fora resulting Court was the Court's than the Illinois from court lighter, more Court's docket congestion efficient docket. because the cases in Illinois are on similar time lines to this case. 4. The local There is no local The Illinois Court interest interest in the has a greater Illinois Court interest in this because the relevant case because the cases are before a cases pending number of different before that court judges meaning the relating to the court does not have same parties and increased efficiency patent. because the cases have not been heard by a single judge. 5. The public No argument made. No argument made. policies of the fora When viewed outside the scope of the factors, Defendant's main contention is that the case should be transferred so that it is heard by the same court that has heard the other cases stemming from the alleged patent infringement at issue in this case. Plaintiff counters that efficiency may be found when a single judge presides over similar cases, not when a single court, but multiple judges in that court (Illinois) preside over the cases, which is the situation here.III. DISCUSSION OF THE RELEVANT FACTORS
With regard to the parties' positions, the following are the Court's findings on each factor. Private Factors — Court's Findings Public Factors — Court's Findings Markman
Court's Finding 1. Plaintiff's A plaintiff's choice of venue is given forum preference great deference, and the Court will give as manifested in such deference to Plaintiff because it the original filed this case in this Court for choice legitimate reasons. Accordingly, this factor weighs against transfer. 2. The defendant's Defendant clearly prefers a transfer, and preference thus, this factor favors transfer. 3. Whether the This factor is not relevant in this case. claim arose elsewhere 4. The convenience Although Defendant may find it more of the parties convenient to litigate in Illinois, Plaintiff chose to litigate in Delaware because it believed this Court was more convenient for it. Thus, this factor is neutral with regard to transfer. 5. The convenience Defendant did not establish that witnesses of the witnesses, would refuse or be physically unable to but only to the attend trial in Delaware nor that the ease extent that the of travel to Illinois is substantially witnesses may different than travel to Delaware. actually be Accordingly, the Court finds that this unavailable for factor weighs against transfer. trial in one of the fora 6. The location of Defendant has not shown that there would books and records, be any difficulty in producing records in but only to the Delaware. Thus, the Court finds that this extent that they factor weighs against transfer. may actually be unavailable for trial in one of the fora Court's Findings 1. The This factor is not an issue in this case, enforceability of thus, the Court finds that this factor is the judgment neutral with regard to transfer. 2. Practical Although the Illinois Court does have considerations multiple cases pending relating to the that could make same materials, these cases are before the trial easy, multiple judges. With multiple judges expeditious, or presiding, any efficiency that is gained inexpensive by similar cases being in the same court is lost. The existence of a proposed decision does not change the Court's view on this argument. Thus, the Court finds that this factor weighs against transfer. 3. The relative The efficiency of the dockets of the two administrative courts is not dramatically different. difficulty in the Accordingly, the Court finds that this two fora resulting factor is neutral with regard to transfer. from court congestion 4. The local For the same reasons as explained in interest Public Factor 2, the Court finds that this factor weighs against transfer. 5. The public This factor is not an issue in this case, policies of the thus, the Court finds that this factor is fora neutral with regard to transfer.IV. DECISION
In sum, after considering the private and public factors the Court finds that this case could have been filed in the District of Northern Illinois. However, Plaintiff chose to file the case in Delaware because both Plaintiff and Defendant are incorporated in and thus, residents of Delaware.Defendant's principal argument for transfer is that the case should be transferred for judicial efficiency because several cases are pending in the Northern District of Illinois regarding actions brought by Defendant against Plaintiff's customers. While judicial efficiency is an important concern, the cases are presently distributed among five different judges. In order for efficiency to be achieved, the cases would have to be before a single judge. The result is that transferring this case to Illinois would not increase efficiency over what it is currently. The proposed claim construction from the Illinois Court does not change the Court's opinion because the construction was not adopted and related to different parties.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant has not established that a transfer of venue to the Northern District of Illinois would be more convenient than the District of Delaware for the parties nor that it is needed to promote the interests of justice.
V. Conclusion
For the reasons discussed, the Motion to Transfer Venue (D.I. 18) to the Northern District of Illinois will be denied.
An appropriate order will be entered.