Opinion
No. 01 C 6126
November 27, 2001
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, a resident of Indiana, brings this FELA action against her Indiana employer for injuries sustained in Indiana. Defendant moves for transfer of the action to the Northen District of Indiana, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 7404(a). That motion is granted.
The courthouse in Hammond is not far from Chicago and virtually all the potential witnesses are within the subpoena range of Fed.R.Civ.P. 45. Thus litigation here would not be excessively inconvenient, But this case has no ties to Illinois other than plaintiffs counsel (and that does not count) and a couple of doctors designated by the defendant, and they live closer to Hammond than to downtown Chicago. All the other witnesses, except for one who now resides In Florida, live in Indiana, and almost all of them reside or work east of Hammond and would have to come through Rammond on the way to Chicago. Further, apotential third party defendant is located In7lndiana.
My colleagues have on various occasions transferred similar cases to the Northern District of Indiana. See Albin v. Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Company, 96 C 5361 (Judge James Alesia); Gasda v. Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Co., 1999 WL 592098 (N.D. Ill.) (Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer); Certa v. Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 98 C 3595 (Judge Joan Gottschall); Brill v. Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad, 98 C 3568 (Judge Charles Norgle); Smith v. IHB, 97 C 1841 (Judge David Coar); Cosme v. Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad, 98 C 2525 (Judge James F. Holderman); and Diaz v. Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad, 99 C 2247 (Judge George W. Lindberg). There may well be a feeling that filing Indiana-based cases here has an element of forum shopping. In any event litigating in Hammond is more convenient for everyone, parties and witnesses; and the interest of justice, given Indiana's interest and Illinois' lack of interest in this controversy, also supports transfer.