Summary
utilizing case load statistics to determine forum congestion in motion to transfer context
Summary of this case from TAYLOR v. TECO BARGE LINE, INC.Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-1968, SECTION "K" (1)
November 27, 2002
ORDER AND REASONS:
Before this Court is Defendant TETRA Technologies' Motion to Transfer Venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES, TETRA's Motion to Transfer.
Facts:
This motion arises from an underlying complaint for a declaratory judgment raised by Axa-Re Property and Casualty Insurance Company, (hereinafter, "Axa"). On June 25, 2002, Axa sought a declaration from this Court that it does not provide maritime hull insurance coverage to TETRA Technologies, (hereinafter, "TETRA"), on its two vessels, Work Over Barge 27 (hereinafter, "Barge 27") and the D/B SOUTHERN HERCULES (hereinafter, "SOUTHERN HERCULES"), which were allegedly damaged during the term of a policy of insurance issued by Axa (hereinafter the "Axa Policy").
A copy of the Axa policy is not before the Court.
The first incident occurred on March 1, 2002, in the Vermillion Block 16 of the Gulf of Mexico, off the coast of Louisiana, on Barge 27. Barge 27 allegedly sustained heavy weather damage and partially sank. Axa contends that the Barge was not listed in the schedule of vessels and was not surveyed by Axa, as required by the terms of the Axa policy. In particular, Axa argues that TETRA never installed high water bilge alarms on the vessel. TETRA, however argues, that Barge 27 was covered under the Axa policy which commenced on January 1, 2002. TETRA insists that the policy at issue is allegedly a renewal of a previous Hull and Machinery Policy and that the language of the old policy is broad enough to cover Barge 27.
TETRA contends that the barge was covered under the Axa policy because it was built in June 2001 out of one-half of the hull of a vessel, the DE-1, that was scheduled under the policy.
Damage to the second vessel, the SOUTHERN HERCULES, occurred on or about March 24, 2002, when the vessel was engaged in a platform demolition project in the Matagorda Island Area of the Gulf of Mexico. The SOUTHERN HERCULES lifted a section of the well jacket and placed it in the slings of the vessel's derrick in a partially submerged condition. While deballasting the No. I tanks, the jacket broke loose from the slings, allegedly damaging the jib boom beyond repair. Axa contends that TETRA exceeded the maximum lifting capacity of the vessel, and in doing so violated the safe load warranty contained in the Axa Policy. Axa argues that as a result of this violation, it is entitled to a declaration of non-coverage for the damages to the SOUTHERN HERCULES. Not surprisingly, TETRA argues that there is no evidence that the safe working load was exceeded.
Additionally, the parties dispute the extent of the damage to the boom of the SOUTHERN HERCULES. Axa argues that the boom can be repaired, while TETRA contends that it must be replaced. Axa also alleges that the jib boom was damaged in a March 2000 incident prior to the inception of the Axa policy, and that to the extent the damage to the boom predated the Axa policy, it is outside the scope of coverage.
Location of the Parties:
This case involves witnesses, parties, and events in Texas, Louisiana, and New York. TETRA's main headquarters and principal place of business is in The Woodland's, Texas. TETRA Applied Technologies, a wholly owned subsidiary of TETRA, and the actual owner of Barge 27 and the SOUTHERN HERCULES is a Delaware partnership with six offices in Texas and nine offices in Louisiana. The policy in question was issued to TETRA Technologies, et al.
Currently pending before the magistrate is Axa's motion to amend the complaint to add TETRA Applied as a defendant. ( See Rec. Doc. 6.)
The plaintiff, Axa, is a subsidiary of Axa insurance Company, based in France. Axa is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in New York. Axa has appointed Covenant Underwriters, Ltd., a Louisiana corporation domiciled in Covington, Louisiana, as its managing general agent. Continental Underwriters, Ltd., is a Louisiana corporation also domiciled in Covington, Louisiana, does the actual underwriting for Axa, and issues policies on its behalf. All claims made under the Axa policy were adjusted by Covenant Claims Services, a Louisiana limited liability company domiciled in Covington. No direct Axa employee handled any of the instant claims.
Lockton Insurance Agency of Houston, Inc. (hereinafter, "Lockton"), headquartered in Houston, Texas, brokered coverage on behalf of TETRA. TETRA obtained insurance through its broker, Lockton. Axa's broker, Continental Underwriters, eventually issued the policy in question to TETRA (it is unclear as to whether the policy was issued directly to TETRA or to delivered to Lockton then sent to TETRA). TETRA sent its claims to Lockton, which in turn sent those claims to Covenant Claims Services, to adjust. Contentions of the parties:
Price Deposition, 13.
Id. at 13-15.
Id. at 55; See also, Defendant's Exhibit 6 ("Certificate of Insurance Issued to TETRA Technologies, Inc., et al. by Continental Underwriters"). It appears from Defendant's Exhibit 6 and Defendant's Exhibit 1, that TETRA Technologies negotiated the policy and maintains the documents related to the policy.
Id. at 53-55.
TETRA contends that the following facts support its Motion to Transfer Venue and illustrate that the Southern District of Texas is a more convenient forum than the Eastern District of Louisiana.
With respect to Barge 27, TETRA asserts that the main issue relates to coverage and, as such, it will depend on the testimony of:
1. Linden Price, the Vice President of TETRA who handled the claims and listing issues with respect to both vessels
2. Kathy Romoff, who provided a schedule of vessels including Barge 27 to Lockton Insurance Agency of Houston, Inc., and
3. Two employees of Lockton Insurance Agency of Houston, Inc., Aaron Drake and Mark Mozell.
TETRA states that neither party will need Barge 27 crew members to testify. At most, TETRA concedes, Axa may need the testimony of Mark Shreve an underwriter employed by Covenant Underwriters from Covington, Louisiana. TETRA characterizes the contacts as a 4 to 2 ratio, with four contacts in Texas and two in Louisiana.
Axa argues that in order to prove that Barge 27 was not covered, it will need to rely on the testimony of the above witnesses, plus it will need crew members to testify as to whether there were any bilge alarms installed in the vessel when it sank. Axa states that these crew members and the surveyors of the damage to Barge 27 are from Louisiana. Axa, therefore, would add more Louisiana residents to TETRA's count of witnesses, and adjust the 4 to 2 ratio to a 4 to 7 ratio—four witnesses in Texas, and seven in Louisiana.
Axa contends that 2 of the crew members are from Louisiana, 2 are from Mississippi, within the subpoena power of the Court and 2 are from Alabama. (Price Deposition at 27). The survey of the damage to the vessel was done by Armand Cuevas of Intermodal Transportation Services of Slidell, Louisiana. Two surveyors, Norm Laskey and Paul Diester in the Metairie office of Durfour, Laskey, and Strousse, conducted the survey that put Barge 27 on the list of insured vessels.
With respect to the SOUTHERN HERCULES, TETRA argues that the three main issues are: 1) coverage, 2) whether the SOUTHERN HERCULES violated its lifting or weight capabilities, and 3) whether the vessel had pre-existing damage. TETRA admits that the issues related to this vessel are more fact intensive and may require more witnesses, however, it asserts that it will not need crew members to testify as to the weight capabilities or pre-existing damage. TETRA suggests that it will only need the superintendents of the barge to testify on these issues as well as the surveyors. TETRA also contends it will need the following witnesses who are located in Texas:
The superintendents Thomas Godwin, and Assistant Superintendent George Loescher both reside in the Eastern District of Louisiana.
1. Mac Culpepper, the general manager of the heavy lift decommissioning group, working in The Woodlands, Texas, who had oversight responsibility for the operations being performed by the SOUTHERN HERCULES at the time of the incident (Defendant's Exhibit 1);
2. Linden Price, Vice President of TETRA, working out of The Woodlands, Texas, who conducted surveys of both vessels (Defendant's Exhibit 1);
3. Richard Dodson, the General Manager of TETRA, working out of The Woodlands, Texas, who handled Barge 27 (Defendant's Exhibit 1);
4. Kathy Romoff, working out of The Woodlands, Texas, who provided a schedule of vessels including Barge 27 to Lockton Insurance Agency of Houston, Inc. (Defendant's Exhibit 1);
5. Gary Hanna, Senior Vice President of TETRA's well abandonment and decommissioning operations working out of The Woodlands, Texas (Defendant's Exhibit 1);
6. Aaron Drake and Mark Mozell, with Lockton Insurance Agency of Houston, Inc. in Houston, Texas (Defendant's Motion to Transfer, p. 7); and
7. Richard Hogg Lindley, a loss adjuster, working out of Houston, Texas, who handled the claim arising from the March 2000 accident involving the SOUTHERN HERCULES and will testify as to the pre-existing damage of to the boom (Defendant's Exhibit 1).
Tetra maintains that it will call these eight witnesses, all from Texas, for the purpose of testifying about the three issues related to the SOUTHERN HERCULES.
Axa contends that in addition to the superintendents of the SOUTHERN HERCULES, who reside in the Eastern District of Louisiana, it will call some of the crew members to testify about the damage done to the SOUTHERN HERCULES by the rogue wave and regarding the damage to the jib boom. Axa states that of the seven crew members aboard at the time of the loss, six are within the subpoena power of the Court. Additionally, Axa asserts that it will ask Marc Olivier, who currently resides in Theriot, Louisiana, to testify about performing weight calculations for the lift at the time the damage occurred. Mr. Olivier's testimony is material to the issue of whether TETRA breached the safe working load requirement. Axa also intends to call the following witnesses to testify regarding the damage done to the SOUTHERN
According to Loescher and Godwin the crew members aboard the SOUTHERN HERCULES are the "hands-on guys . . . [who operate the vessel] every day." (Price deposition at 34).
At the time of the incident Mr. Olivier was employed at TETRA's Houma Office. Presently, he no longer works for TETRA.
HERCULES:
1. William Ritchie, employed by Admiralty Claims Service of Mandeville, Louisiana who investigated the damage;
2. Robert Bartlett, of Bartlett Engineering, a Metairie, Louisiana corporation, retained by Axa to express an opinion regarding repairs to the jib boom;
3. Arthur Sargent of Sargent Herkes, in New Orleans, Louisiana who will testify to whether the working load of the derrick was exceeded and whether the jib boom could b repaired.;
4. Mike Shreve, a loss adjuster employed by Covenant Claims service who is domiciled in Louisiana.
All together, Axa intends to call at least nine witnesses who reside in the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Analysis:
This Court DENIES the defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue because the defendant has not met its burden of showing that the transfer would advance the interest of justice and promote the convenience of the parties and witnesses. Laitram Corporation v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 120 F. Supp.2d 607, 608 (E.D. La. 2000).
In its Motion to Transfer, TETRA requests that this Court transfer the action to the Southern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) which states: "For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district court or division where it might have been brought." In the context of a Motion to Transfer pursuant to § 1404(a), the movant bears the burden of demonstrating that the case should be transferred to an alternate forum. Time, Inc. v. Manning, 366 F.2d 690, 698 (5th Cir. 1966). To prevail, the defendant must show that (1) this case might have been brought in the Southern District of Texas, and (2) the transfer would advance the interest of justice and the convenience of the parties and witnesses. Laitram Corporation v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 120 F. Supp.2d 607, 608 (E.D.La. 2000). Since the plaintiff does not contest that its case might have been brought in the Southern District of Texas, the Court focuses on the latter consideration.
The trial court, in its discretion, may decide whether to transfer a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1404. Id. In section 1404(a) cases, courts generally 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 transfer to a different forum. Id. These factors are divided into private and public concerns that must be balanced to determine whether a transfer is necessary. Weinmann v. North American Fiberglass Corp., No. CIV.A.95-4106, 1996 WL 229820, at *5 (E.D.La. May 6, 1996); Yorkshire Partnership, Ltd., v. Smith, No.CIV.A.94-3458 1996 WL 104202, at *4 (E.D.La. March 7, 1996). These factors include:
Private factors:
1. The relative ease of access to sources of proof;
2. The availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses;
3. The cost of attendance for willing witnesses;
4. All other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive.
Weinmann, 1996 WL 229820, at * 5.
Public factors:
1. The administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion;
2. The local interest in having localized controversies decided at home;
3. The familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case;
4. The avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws of the application of foreign law.
Weinmann 1996 WL 229820, at * 5. Generally, unless the balance of the factors strongly favor of the defendant, the plaintiffs choice of forum should rarely be disturbed. Weinmann 1996 WL 229820, at * 5 (quoting Syndicate 420 at Lloyds' London v. Earl Amer. Ins. Co., 796 F.2d 821, 831 (5th Cir. 1986)). The Court evaluates the foregoing public/private factors in turn.
The Court notes at the outset that some deference will be given to the plaintiffs choice of forum, though this factor is by no means determinative. Several courts have noted that the deference given to a plaintiffs choice of forum is greater in a forum non convenies transfer than it is in a § 1404(a) transfer. Reed v. Fina Oil Chemical Company, 995 F. Supp. 705, 714 (E.D.Tex. 1998); Continental Airlines v. American Airlines, 805 F. Supp. 1392, 1393 (S.D. Tex. 1992); United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Republic Drug Co. Inc., 800 F. Supp. 1076, 1080 (E.D. N.Y. 1992). When the plaintiff engages in blatant forum shopping with little or no factual justification for his choice of forum, the Court should closely scrutinize his choice. Thurmond v. Compaq Computer Corp., 1:99 CV 711, 20000 WL 33795090, *7 (E.D. Tex. March 1, 2000). Otherwise, when there exists some applicable transfer factors supporting venue, the deference to the plaintiffs choice of forum should remain in tact. Id.
In this case, technically, the plaintiffs choice of forum is not its principal place of business or state of incorporation. However, Axa contends that for all practical purposes, the Eastern District of Louisiana is its home forum because it appointed Covenant Underwriters, Ltd., a Louisiana corporation domiciled in Covington, Louisiana as its main and general agent. The Court will give deference to Axa's choice of forum. Although not technically its domicile, Axa's choice of forum is not fortuitous or attenuated with the actual events giving rise to the underlying cause of action. See United States Fidelity and Guaranty, 800 F. Supp. at 1082 ("[W]here transactions or facts giving rise to the action have no material relation or significant connection to the plaintiffs chosen forum, then the plaintiffs choice is not accorded the same "great weight.")."
(1) Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof
The first of the private factors is the relative ease of access to sources of proof. In this case, this factor does not tip the balance in favor of transfer. TETRA contends that its documents pertaining to insurance claims, the negotiation of the renewal policy, and other documents pertaining to the two vessels reside in The Woodlands, Texas, making the Southern District of Texas a more convenient forum. However, Axa counters that their claims and surveying documents are in Covington, Louisiana with Covenant Claims Services and Continental Underwriters, the entities that issued, adjusted, and negotiated the policy. Therefore, as to the relative ease of producing documents relating to the policy and the pertinent events, it seems that TETRA will need to transport documents if the Court retains the case and Axa will need to transport documents if the Court transfers it.
(2) The availability of Compulsory Process to Secure Witnesses
As to the second private factor—the availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses—the Court finds that the witnesses are evenly distributed, with a few more witnesses and surveyors located in Louisiana than in Texas. Many of the witness who reside in Texas, are employees of TETRA and TETRA Applied, and therefore would appear in court. The sole witnesses who may be outside of the Court's subpoena power are the Lockton employees. TETRA argues that their testimony is material regarding coverage of both vessels but that they are not subject to personal jurisdiction in the Eastern District of Louisiana. However, Axa has shown that Lockton has appointed an agent for service in Louisiana and contends that its employees regularly conduct business in Louisiana.
See Louisiana Secretary of State Unofficial Detail Record, http://www.sec.state.la.us./cgibin?rqstyp=crpdtlrqsdta=34515989F.
The cost of attendance for willing witnesses also appears to be equal. Thus far, there is no persuasive evidence tending to show that one party is better able to bear the costs of securing the attendance of its witnesses. Undoubtedly, Axa's litigation expenses would be reduced if this Court retained this case, and TETRA's would be reduced if this Court transferred it. Transfer is proper when it would serve the efficient administration of justice and "not simply shift the inconvenience from one party to another." Boyd v. Snyder, 44 F. Supp.2d 966, 969 (N.D.Ill. 1999).
(3) Practical Problems:
The third private factor is somewhat of a catchall and includes "all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive." Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947). To support its argument that the Souther District of Texas is a more convenient and expeditious form, TETRA directs the Court's attention toward the fact that TETRA Applied, TETRA's subsidiary and the owner of the vessels, has instituted a lawsuit against Axa in state district court in Harris County, Texas. This factor may weigh toward transferring the case to the Southern District of Texas should TETRA choose to remand the federal action to state court and have the cases consolidated. However, as long as two separate proceedings are pending, transferring this case to the forum in Texas is not more expeditious than trying it here.
The pending state court litigation, Tetra Applied Technologies. L.P. v. Axa-Re Property and Casualty Insurance Company Lockton Insurance Agency of Houston, Inc., Cause No. 2002-43743, was filed on August 23, 2002.
The Court notes that TETRA, in citing Wilton v. Seven Falls. Co., 515 U.S. 277 (1995), has suggested in its reply brief filed on October 8, 2002, that this Court, should stay the instant proceeding until the conclusion of the state court proceeding. Pursuant to Wilton, this Court has discretion to stay a federal declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration of coverage pending the resolution of a later-filed state action encompassing the same coverage issue. As the Court advised the parties during oral argument, this issue is more appropriately raised in a motion to stay or dismiss the action. In fairness to Axa, who did not have a chance to adequately respond to TETRA's reply brief filed one day prior to oral argument, the Court informed the parties that it would not rule on the Wilton issue, until after the Court rules on the Motion to Transfer.
(4) Public Factors:
Evaluation of the public factors tips the scale slightly in favor of transfer. The public factors that a court may consider in a motion to transfer are:
1. The administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion;
2. The local interest in having localized controversies decided at home;
3. The familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case;
4. The avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws of the application of foreign law.Weinmann v. North American Fiberglass Corp., No. CIV.A.95-4106, 1996 WL 229820, at *5 (E.D.La. May 6, 1996).
As to the first public factor concerning court congestion, Axa has asserted that trying this case in the Southern District will not ease administrative difficulties. According to the 2001 Judicial Caseload Profile Reports promulgated by the Justice Department, in 2001 there were 7,512 cases pending in the Southern District of Texas, or an average of just under 400 active cases per judge. In Louisiana during this same time period, there were 2, 855 cases pending, or 238 cases per judge. From these statistics, it appears the Southern District of Texas is arguably more congested. Id.
See Judicial Case Load Profile Report, http://www.uscourts.gov/cig-bin/cmsd2001.pl.
The second public factor—local interest in having localized controversies resolved at home—does not suggest that Texas is a more appropriate forum. The events contributing to the damage of the vessels occurred in the Eastern District of Louisiana, many of the witnesses are from Louisiana, underwriter and adjuster are from Louisiana, and the vessels are both home ported in Louisiana. However, the policy was executed in the Southern District of Texas and the Southern District of Texas is the domicile of TETRA. TETRA Applied is a Delaware company that has offices in Texas and Louisiana. Axa his its headquarters in New York. The Court finds that this controversy has no particularly local flavor in either Texas or Louisiana.
The third and fourth public factors relate to conflict of law problems and the possible application of foreign law should the case remain in this jurisdiction. In TETRA's briefs, it argues that Texas law will apply to the construction and interpretation of Plaintiff's insurance policy, and for this reason, the case would be most efficiently tried in Texas, the forum most familiar with Texas law. TETRA reasons that Texas law applies because under the Texas Insurance Code "[a]ny contract of insurance payable to any citizen or inhabitant of this State by any insurance company or corporation doing business within this State shall be held to be a contract made and entered into under and by virtue of the law of this State relating to insurance, and governed thereby . . ." Tex. Ins. Code. Art. 21.42.
Despite the fact that TETRA's choice of law analysis is rather abbreviated, the Court agrees with TETRA's conclusion that Texas law is likely to apply in this case. After undergoing the proper choice of law procedure, for the limited purpose of deciding the issue of whether this public factor weighs in favor of transferring the case to the Southern District of Texas, the Court finds that factors three and four—conflict of law problems and the possible application of foreign law—favor transfer.
In Wilburn Boat co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 348 U.S. 310 (1955), the Supreme Court concluded that the regulation of marine insurance is in most instances, properly left with the states. See also Albany Ins. Co. v. Ahn Thi Kieu, 927 F.2d 882 (5th Cir. 1991); Ingersoll-Rand Financial Corp. v. Employers Ins, of Wassau, 771 F.2d 910, 915 (5th Cir. 1985). Unless an available federal maritime rule controls the disputed issue, state law, governs. Albany Ins. Co., 927 F.2d at 886. The presumption of state law in marine insurance cases is by now "axiomatic." Id. However, there are three factors the court uses in determining if a federal maritime rule controls the disputed issue: (1) whether the federal maritime rule constitutes "entrenched federal precedent;" (2) whether the state has a substantial and legitimate interest in the application of its law; (3) whether the state's rule is materially different from the federal maritime rule. Id.
As to the first factor, the Court finds no "entrenched federal precedent" suggesting that federal maritime law should be used over state law. In applying the second factor—whether the state has a substantial and legitimate interest in the application of its law—the Court finds that only Texas has a substantial and legitimate interest in applying its law. Although, the case involves substantial contacts in Louisiana and Texas, Texas has a greater interest in applying its law. First, TETRA Technologies is domiciled in Louisiana. Second, the policy was issued, delivered and executed in Texas. Continental Underwriters issued the policy to Lockton, domiciled in Houston, Texas. Lockton, the company that delivered the policy to TETRA is located in The Woodlands, Texas. Despite the fact that many of the witnesses and events arising from the damage to the vessels took place in Louisiana, because this case hinges upon a dispute as to coverage under a marine insurance contract issued and delivered in Texas to a Texas citizen, and not a tort occurring in Louisiana, the Court finds that Texas has a stronger interest in having its own law apply. Texas' interest in the protection of its citizens against underwriters and insurance companies from different states, supercedes any interest that Louisiana may have in applying its law. Therefore, under the second factor—whether the state has a substantial and legitimate interest in the application of its—Texas state law should apply over federal maritime law.
As to the third and final step in determining whether state or federal maritime law should apply—whether the state's rule is materially different from the federal maritime—the Court finds that state law should apply. There is an absence of federal maritime law on this issue and neither of the parties have brought to the Court's attention the existence of any federal maritime law that differs from state law governing marine insurance coverage disputes.
In ascertaining the appropriate state law to apply in a maritime case, a court must utilize general maritime choice of law rules. Albany Ins. Co., 927 F.2d at 891; Gonzalez v. Naviera Neptuno A.A., 832 F.2d 876, 880 n. 3 (5th Cir. 1987). Choice of law analysis generally requires the application of the law of the state that has the "`most significant relationship'" to the issue in question. Albany Ins. Co., 927 F.2d at 891 (citing Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 6 (1980)). The most significant relationship test examines the relative interests of the states that share a relationship with the transaction and the parties. Id. at 891. In order to determine which states have sufficient contact with the policy and the parties, the court looks to the state where the policy was formed or where it was issued and delivered Id.; see also Randall, 13 F.3d at 894; Transco Explor. Co. v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co, 869 F.2d 862, 863 (5th Cir. 1989); Graham v. Milky Way Barge, Inc., 811 F.2d 881, 885 (5th Cir. 1987); Elevating Boats. Inc. v. Gulf Coast Marine, Inc., 766 F.2d 195, 198 (5th Cir. 1985).
After the court has identified the states that have sufficient contact with the policy, the court then determines which state has the greatest interest in resolving the issues surrounding the policy. Albany Ins. Co., 927 F.2d at 891; Truchart v. Blandon, 884 F.2d 223, 226 (5th Cir. 1989). As discussed above, the insurance policy was issued in Louisiana by Axa's agent, Continental Underwriters, and delivered to the broker, Lockton in Houston, Texas. Lockton delivered it to TETRA in The Woodlands, Texas. As noted previously, Texas has the most significant contact with the insurance policy and the parties, and it has the greatest interest in resolving the issue of whether the two vessels were covered under the policy's terms. Therefore, the Court finds that it is likely that Texas law will apply to construe it. Thus, public factors three and four favor transferring the case to the Southern District of Texas where a court more familiar with Texas law may apply Texas insurance law to this case.
The Court reiterates that it conducts this choice of law analysis only for the purpose of determining whether the public factors weigh in favor of transfer.
The amount of weight the Court should give this factor—the Court's familiarity with the applicable law—is unclear. In Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947), the Supreme Court discussed the familiarity of the forum court with the applicable law as a "public interest" to be considered when determining whether a venue transfer is warranted. See Illinois Union Ins. Co. v. Tri Core, Inc., 191 F. Supp.2d 794, 800-801 n. 18 (N.D.Tex. 2002). Within this jurisdiction the Court has yet to encounter a court that transferred a case solely because of this familiarity with applicable law factor. See also Eastman Medical Prods. Inc. v. E.R. Squibb Sons Inc., 199 F. Supp.2d 590, 598 (N.D.Tex. 2002).
Conclusion
Although this Motion to Transfer presents legitimate arguments, TETRA has not persuaded the Court that a transfer to the Southern District of Texas will promote the "convenience of parties and witnesses" or the "interest of justice," essential to the 1404(a) inquiry. Typically, the most important factor to consider in a 1404(a) motion is the inconvenience of the forum on parties and material witnesses. Because more witnesses are located in Louisiana, than Texas, and many of these witnesses are not employees of the parties, the Court finds that this forum is the most convenient for the majority of the witnesses and will advance the interests of justice. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that TETRA's Motion to Transfer is hereby, DENIED.