Summary
denying motion to transfer for lack of evidence as to where witnesses reside
Summary of this case from Rogers v. MarineOpinion
No. 00-3143, Section: "R" (5).
January 2, 2001.
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is defendant Aries Marine Corporation's motion to transfer the above captioned matter to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette-Opelousas Division. For the following reasons, the Court denies defendant's motion.
I. Background
This case arises from a maritime injury. Plaintiff Rickey Antley alleges that on October 3, 1998, he slipped on oil and fell down a ladder in the engine room of the M/V JAMIE G. At the time of the alleged accident, the M/V JAMIE G was operating off the coast of Intracoastal City, Louisiana. Plaintiff thereafter sued Aries Marine Corporation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Defendant now moves to transfer the matter to the Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette-Opelousas Division.
II. Discussion
When exercising its discretion to transfer a civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a), a district court "must consider `all relevant factors to determine whether or not on balance the litigation would more conveniently proceed and the interests of justice be better served by a transfer to a different forum.'" Peteet V. Dow Chem. Co., 868 F.2d 1428, 1436 (5th Cir. 1989) (quoting 15 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3847 (1986)). See 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a). See also In re McDonnell-DouglaS Corp., 647 F.2d 515, 516-17 (5th Cir. 1981) ("Although the other general venue statutes are inapplicable in admiralty, section 1404(a) has been held to apply."). Relevant case-specific factors include the relative ease of accessing sources of proof, the availability of compulsory process to compel witness attendance, the cost of attendance — for willing witnesses, and other practical problems that make trying a case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive. See Syndicate 420 at Lloyd's London v. Early Am. Ins. Co., 796 F.2d 821, 831 (5th Cir. 1986); Contimental Ins. Co. v. I.T.O. Corp., 2000 WL 777909, at *2 (E.D.La. June 14, 2000). Relevant public-interest factors include court congestion, local interest, forum familiarity with the governing law, and avoiding unnecessary problems of conflict of law. See Syndicate 420 at Lloyd's London, 796 F.2d at 831; Contimental Ins. Co., 2000 WL 777909, at *2. The party seeking to transfer venue bears the burden of demonstrating that the forum should be changed. See Time, Inc. v. Manning, 366 F.2d 690, 698 (5th Cir. 1966); Denson v. United States, 99 F. Supp.2d 792, 794 (S.D. Tex. 2000). Unless the balance of factors strongly favors the movant, the district court will not disturb a plaintiff's choice of forum. See In re McDonnell-DouglaS Corp., 647 F.2d at 517 (citing Gulf Oil Co. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 67 S.Ct. 839 (1947)); Continental Ins. Co., 2000 WL 777909, at *1; Billiot v. G B Marine, Inc., 1990 WL 43916, at *2 (E.D.La. Apr. 9, 1990).
Defendants move to transfer this matter to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette-Opelousas Division. In support of the motion they assert that the alleged accident occurred off the coast of Intracoastal City in the Western District, all the parties reside in the Western District, and all the witnesses reside in the Western District or out of the state of Louisiana.
After balancing the relevant factors, the Court denies defendant's motion to transfer. First, while the location of the alleged accident may bear on the propriety of a particular venue, it does not tilt the balance in defendant's favor when considering whether to transfer venue. Second, although plaintiff and his treating physicians reside in the Western District, their residences are in Natchitoches and Shreveport, Louisiana, which are in the Shreveport Division of the Western District, not the Lafayette-Opelousas Division. Accordingly, defendant's motion to transfer this matter to the Lafayette-Opelousas Division would still require the treating physicians to commute. Although that commute may be shorter than traveling to New Orleans, the Court is not convinced that the additional commuting time outweighs plaintiff's choice of forum. Third, it is unclear where the witnesses reside. The supporting affidavit states: "The crew of the M/V Jamie G were residents of the Western District of Louisiana or resided out of state." (Def.'s Mot. Transfer, Romero Aff. at 2.) Defendants present no evidence of the witnesses' current addresses, making it impossible to determine whether trial in the Lafayette-Opelousas Division would be more convenient for them. Furthermorer there is no evidence that the parties will require the testimony of any of these witnesses, let alone the value of that testimony. In the absence of any such evidence, the Court is unwilling to transfer this matter.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies defendant Aries Marine Corporation's motion to transfer.