Opinion
Civil Action No. 04-1562.
July 8, 2004
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff, a Pennsylvania citizen residing in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, instituted this action for breach of contract and bad faith claims in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm"), an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois. State Farm timely removed the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, asserting diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). It now seeks transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), claiming the Middle District is the more appropriate forum.
After considering all relevant factors, we conclude that the defendant has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the balance of conveniences and the interest of justice tips in favor of transfer. Thus, we shall deny the transfer motion.
Background Facts
The plaintiff alleges that State Farm, her insurer, breached its insurance contract and engaged in bad faith conduct in adjusting her underinsured motorist claim arising out of a car accident which had occurred in Philadelphia. The plaintiff contends the defendant sent selected information, including photographs of her slightly damaged vehicle, to its examining physician in order to influence the conclusions regarding the cause of her shoulder injuries. The defendant then allegedly used the doctor's report to justify its offer to settle the underinsured motorist claim at an artificially low value. The plaintiff eventually settled her UIM claim. The issuance of the insurance policy, the adjustment and processing of the underinsured motorist benefits claim, and the medical examination all took place in the Middle District.
Legal Standard
A defendant moving for transfer of venue bears the burden of demonstrating that (1) the case could have been brought initially in the proposed transferee forum; (2) the proposed transfer will be more convenient for the parties and witnesses; and, (3) the proposed transfer will be in the interest of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir. 1995); Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp., 431 F.2d 22, 25 (3d Cir. 1970). Once the defendant establishes that the action could have been brought in the proposed district, the court must weigh several private and public interest factors to determine whether the balance of conveniences tips in favor of transfer. Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879-80.
The plaintiff does not dispute that this action could have been properly filed in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
Among the factors considered when determining whether transfer is more convenient for the parties and in the interest of justice are: (1) the plaintiffs' choice of forum; (2) the defendant's preferred forum; (3) the place where the claim arose; (4) the relative ease of access to the sources of proof; (5) the convenience of the parties as demonstrated by relative financial status and physical location; (6) the availability of compulsory process for the attendance of witnesses; (7) the convenience of the witnesses; (8) the practical problems that make trial of a case expensive and inefficient; and, (9) "public interest" factors, such as congestion of court dockets and the relationship of the jury and the community to the underlying district. Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879-80; McMillan v. Weeks Marine, Inc., No. 02-6741, 2002 WL 32107617, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 2, 2002).
The district court has broad discretion in deciding a motion for transfer of venue because the analysis involved is "flexible and individualized." Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29-30 (1988). Despite this wide latitude, a transfer motion is not to be granted without a careful weighing of relevant factors favoring and disfavoring the plaintiffs' selection of venue because the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the balance of convenience and the interest of justice clearly favor transfer. Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879-80; see also McMillan, 2002 WL 32107617, at *1.
The plaintiff's choice of venue is usually given paramount consideration. Shutte, 431 F.2d at 25. However, it is given less deference where the plaintiff does not reside in the chosen forum and none of the operative facts occurred there. See McMillan, 2002 WL 32107617, at *1-*2; 15 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., FED. PRAC. PROC. JURIS. 2D § 3848 (2d ed. 1986); cf. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 255 n. 23 (1981) (noting that "[c]itizens or residents deserve somewhat more deference than foreign plaintiffs"). Nonetheless, the plaintiff's choice of venue is not to be lightly disturbed. Stewart, 487 U.S. at 29; Jumara 55 F.3d at 879. Hence, motions to transfer are not to be liberally granted. Id.
Analysis
Because the defendant has filed for transfer under § 1404(a), we need not concern ourselves with the propriety of the plaintiff's original choice of venue. Section 1404(a) applies where both the original and requested venues are proper. Jumara, 55 F.3d at 878. Hence, State Farm does not contend that venue is improper in the Eastern District.In performing our analysis under § 1404(a), we keep in mind that a motion to transfer is not to be liberally granted, and that the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating the proposed transfer will be more convenient for the parties and witnesses, and in the interest of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879; Shutte, 431 F.2d at 25. At the same time, we give deference to the plaintiff's choice of forum.
First, we must determine how much deference to accord the plaintiff's choice of venue. The plaintiff has selected a forum where she does not reside, the insurance policy was not signed, and she was not examined for her injuries. The only relevant connection to the Eastern District is the defendant's business activity.
The plaintiff originally filed her case in the state court in Philadelphia which is located in the lower tier of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The location of the underlying accident is of no consequence. The facts of the accident are not at issue. Nor are the witnesses to the accident necessary to this case involving the insurance company's processing of the underinsured motorist claim. This action revolves around events relating to an insurance policy issued and performed in the Middle District.
In considering the defendant's preference and the convenience of the parties and witnesses, we are not persuaded that the Eastern District poses more of an inconvenience than the Middle District. The defendant alleges that traveling to Philadelphia for depositions and trial would be inconvenient, burdensome, and time consuming for the witnesses. However, it does not provide any evidence to support this contention. Indeed, there is no reason depositions cannot be conducted where the deponents live or work.
Generally, witness inconvenience is viewed in light of unavailability. See Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879. Here, though the defendant states where the plaintiff and the witnesses reside, it does not allege that any witness will be unavailable in either district. The various means of transportation and the proximity of the two districts reduce the significance of any alleged inconvenience based on travel. See Agrotors, Inc. v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., No. 03-4345, 2004 WL 438654, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 8, 2004). In fact, the plaintiff and the witnesses residing and/or working in the Middle District are closer to Philadelphia than Scranton. For example, State Farm's office in York, Pennsylvania, is fifty miles closer to the courthouse in this district. Merely citing witnesses' residences and offices, without more, does not establish inconvenience or unavailability.
The defendant likewise does not demonstrate how the proposed transfer is in the interest of justice. A judgment of this Court would be enforceable in the Middle District where State Farm does business. There are no specific factual allegations that the comparative cost and expediency of litigation in this case weigh in favor of transfer. State Farm insures residents in both districts, and each community has a similar relation to the litigation. There are no significant differences between the public policies of the two districts. Both district courts are familiar with the application of Pennsylvania law.
Conclusion
The defendant has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the balance of conveniences and the interest of justice weighs in favor of transfer to the Middle District. Accordingly, the motion to transfer will be denied.