Summary
ordering transfer based partially on the presence of a nearly identical suit in the Eastern District of North Carolina
Summary of this case from SCHOTT v. IVY ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPOpinion
No. C 03-1533 SI
September 15, 2003
ORDER TRANSFERRING VENUE TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Defendant's motion to transfer venue to the Eastern District of North Carolina came before the Court for hearing on September 5, 2002. Having considered the papers submitted and the arguments of counsel, the motion to transfer venue is GRANTED, and this action is TRANSFERRED to the Eastern District of North Carolina.
BACKGROUND
A. Factual background
In-July, 1998, defendant Lockheed hired plaintiff Raoul D. Lee ("Lee") to work in North Carolina. Lee's position concerned Lockheed's business with the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"). Defendant's Motion at 3. In April, 1999, this position ended and Lockheed found Lee another job within Lockheed. Defendant's Motion at 3-4. Lee filled various positions within the company are interviewed for several other positions in the company. Defendant's Motion at 4. In October, 200 Lee's employment with Lockheed ended. Id. Plaintiff never worked for Lockheed in California Defendant's Reply at 3.
Before working for Lockheed, Lee resided in California. Pl's Opp. at 6. Lee moved with 1 family to North Carolina for the job with Lockheed. Pi's Opp. at 6-7. Lee still owns his house ii Oakland, California, and has rented it out since moving to North Carolina to work for Lockheed, Id. He plans to return to California with his family when he finds a suitable job. Id.
B. Procedural background
Lee originally filed this suit in San Francisco Superior Court in October, 2002, two months after filing a similar claim in North Carolina. Defendant's Motion at 11; Docket #1. The two cases are base on the same facts. Def.'s Reply at 10. Lee waited five months to serve defendants in this action an defendants removed to the Northern District of California on diversity grounds in April, 2003. Def Reply at 2. Defendants now move to transfer the action to the Eastern District of North Carolina for convenience under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
LEGAL STANDARDS
Under § 1404(a), the Court may transfer an action to another district: (1) for the convenience of the parties, (2) for the convenience of the witnesses, and (3) in the interest of justice provided that the action might have been brought in the transferee court. Transfer is discretionary but is governed to certain factors specified in the statute and in relevant case law. An action may not be transferred to district where venue would have been improper if it had originally been filed there.
Once the Court determines that venue would be proper in the transferee district, it must determine whether the action should be transferred. In deciding whether to transfer venue, courts foci on the factors mentioned in § 1404(a): convenience to the parties, convenience to the witnesses, are the interest of justice. There are also a number of sub-factors to each of these considerations.
For example, in analyzing whether transfer might be more convenient "to the parties" there ha been cases allowing for transfer to plaintiffs residence even though plaintiff preferred to sue elsewhere Jordan v. Delaware and Hudson Ry. Co., 590 F. Supp. 997 (D. Pa. 1984).
Additionally, in cases where transfer is based on "the convenience of witnesses," courts usually require that the party seeking transfer designate: (1) the key witnesses to be called, (2) where the witnesses are located, (3) a general statement of what their testimony will cover, and (4) why such testimony is relevant or necessary. A. J. Industries, Inc. v. United States Dist. Ct., 503 F.2d 384 (9th Cir. 1974).
Finally, in situations where a party is transferring the action in "the interest of justice," courts have listed governing factors as including: (1) avoidance of multiple actions, (2) sending the action to the state most familiar with governing law, or (3) the feasibility of consolidation with other actions. 5 Wright Miller § 3854; A. J. Industries. Inc. v. United States Dist. Ct., 503 F.2d 384 (9th Cir. 1974).
Courts interpreting section 1404(a) have added the following considerations: (1) the special weight given to the plaintiffs choice of forum, Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986), and (2) the ease to access of proof. However, some jurisdictions suggest that where plaintiffs choice of forum is a district other than one in which he resides, his choice will be given considerably less weight. Paul v. International Precious Metals Corp., 613 F. Supp. 174 (D. Miss. 1985), Furthermore, the location of counsel is one factor that generally should not govern the judge's exercise of discretion in transferring actions. Soloman v. Continental American, 472 F.2d 1043, 1047 (3rd Cir. 1973).
The burden is on the party seeking transfer to show that when these factors are applied, the balance of convenience clearly favors transfer.Futures Trading Comm'n v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979). It is not enough for defendant merely to show that he prefers another forum and no will transfer be allowed if the result is merely to shift the inconvenience from one party to another. Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 645-46 (1964).
DISCUSSION
The facts at hand strongly support a transfer of venue for convenience to the Eastern District North Carolina. Convenience of the parties, convenience of the witnesses, and the interest of justice favor a transfer. Additionally, relevant evidence will be located in North Carolina,
A. Convenience of the parties
Convenience of the parties favors North Carolina because plaintiff lives there and defend? conducts business there. Although plaintiffs original choice of forum is usually influential, the weight given to plaintiffs choice is greatly diminished if the choice is not where plaintiff resides. Here plaintiff lives in North Carolina; moreover, plaintiff was employed in North Carolina and terminated by defendant in North Carolina. Thus most material facts occurred in North Carolina.
B. Convenience of the witnesses
The convenience of the witnesses favors the transfer to the Eastern District of North Carolina All witness are connected to North Carolina because plaintiff was employed in North Carolina, the defendant is in North Carolina, and the plaintiff lives in North Carolina. Many of the witnesses live in North Carolina; those who do not live there travel to North Carolina for business. Plaintiff argues that many of defendant's potential witnesses are irrelevant to the suit. However, plaintiff cannot deny that the necessary witnesses live in North Carolina or do business in North Carolina.
C. Interest of justice
The interests of justice also favor a transfer to the Eastern District of North Carolina. Plaintiff first filed suit against defendants in North Carolina before filing the suit in California. Both suits an based on the same set of facts, since they both concern the termination of plaintiffs employment with defendant. It is unnecessary for the Court to maintain two parallel suits on opposite sides of the county A transfer promotes judicial economy.
D. Choice of law upon transfer
Plaintiff has raised arguments for California law to apply upon transfer to the Eastern District of North Carolina. This issue is not now before this Court, but remains for the Eastern District determine.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that a transfer of the litigation to the Eastern Dist of North Carolina suits the interests of justice, and the convenience of the parties and witnesses. Court GRANTS defendant's motion and TRANSFERS this action to the Eastern District of North Carolina, under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).