Opinion
No. 03 C 6832
January 28, 2004
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the court on a motion to dismiss and to transfer brought by Defendants OSF St. Francis Medical Center ("OSF") and Gary Schaer. This matter is also before the court on a motion to dismiss brought by Defendants Norman Estes, M.D., Stephen Marshall, M.D., Richard Pearl, M.D., and Robert Smolen, Ph.D. For the reasons stated below we grant the motions in part and deny the motions in part.
BACKGROUND
In July of 2000 Plaintiff Maher Huttam M.D. ("Huttam") began training as a third year surgical resident in a residency training program in Peoria, Illinois, jointly conducted by OSF and the University of Illinois. Huttam claims that he was discriminated against by Defendants in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 2000-2, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
LEGAL STANDARD
A district court may transfer an action to another district where the action might have been brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) "[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, [if it is] in the interest of justice. . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In order to transfer a case the transferor court must first find that: 1) venue is proper in the transferor district, see Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217, 219 (7th Cir. 1986) (stating that a court "in which suit is filed with proper venue" may transfer an action pursuant to § 1404(a)), and 2) venue is proper in the transferee district, see 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (stating that transfer can only be made to district in which the action "might have been brought").
If venue is proper in both the transferor and transferee district, the transferor court should then consider: 1) the choice of forum by plaintiff, Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Citizens Sank and Trust Co. of Park Ridge, Ill, 592 F.2d 364, 368 (7th Cir. 1979), 2) the convenience of the parties, Coffey, 796 F.2d at 220 n. 3, 3) the convenience of the witnesses, Id. and 4) the interest of justice. Id. The movant bears the burden of establishing that the transferee district is "clearly more convenient." Id. at 219-20.
In considering whether to transfer an action the court should "give some weight to the plaintiffs choice of forum." Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 592 F.2d at 368; see also Heller Financial Inc. v. Midwhey Powder Co., Inc., 883 F.2d 1286, 1294 (7th Cir. 1989) (stating that "some weight must be given to [a plaintiffs] choice of forum"). A transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) should not merely shift the inconvenience from one party to another, see Heller Financial, Inc., 883 F.2d at 1294(expressing concern that a transfer would merely shift the inconvenience to the plaintiff), and the choice of a forum by a plaintiff should not be "lightly . . . disturbed." Warshawsky Co v. Arcata Nat'l Corp., 552 F.2d 1257, 1259 (7th Cir. 1977). However, whenever the plaintiff and defendant are in different states, there will inevitably be an inconvenience to one side. In re National Presto Indus., Inc., 347 F.3d 662, 665 (7th Cir. 2003). When the potential inconvenience to the plaintiff and defendant are comparable "the tie is awarded to the plaintiff. . . ." Id.; see also Heston v. Equifax Credit Info. Servs. LLC, 2003 WL 22243986, at *1 (N.D. Ill. 2003) (stating that plaintiffs choice of forum is given less weight if the case has no "significant connection to the chosen forum. . . .")
In addressing the interest of justice factor a court may consider: 1) whether a transfer promotes the "efficient administration of justice," 2) whether the action could be consolidated with other actions in the transferee district, 3) whether the judges in the transferee district are more familiar with the pertinent state law, 4) "whether jurors in a particular district have a financial interest in [the] case," and 5) which district would have jurors that could "best apply community standards." Coffey, 796 F.2d at 220-21, 221 n. 4. The court should also consider whether the transferee district has a lighter docket than the transferor district. In re National Presto Indus., Inc., 347 F.3d at 663. In addressing the interest of justice factor the transferor court should focus on whether the proposed transfer would promote the "efficient functioning of the courts." Coffey, 796 F.2d at 221. The interest of justice factor does not involve a consideration of the merits of plaintiffs claim. Id.