NITZA I. QUIÑONES ALEJANDRO, District Judge.
Before this Court is a motion to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey filed by Defendants Welcome Hotel Group, LLC, and Edison Holdings NJ, LLC (collectively, "Defendants"), on the basis of forum non conveniens pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404(a). [ECF 5]. Plaintiff Paul Madrazo ("Plaintiff") opposes the motion. [ECF 6]. The issues raised in the motion have been fully briefed and are now ripe for disposition. For the reasons set forth herein, Defendants' motion to transfer is granted.
Plaintiff, a resident of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, filed a complaint in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas which asserted negligence claims against three defendants, Welcome Hotel Group, LLC, Edison Holdings NJ, LLC, and Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, LLC.
Section 1404(a) provides that "[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented." 28 U.S.C. §1404(a). The purpose of transferring venue under §1404(a) "is to prevent the waste of time, energy, and money, and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense." Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964). In determining whether transfer is appropriate, "the district court is vested with wide discretion," Plum Tree, Inc. v. Stockment, 488 F.2d 754, 756 (3d Cir. 1973), consistent with federal law. Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 877-78 (3d Cir. 1995).
Analysis of a request for transfer under §1404(a) generally has two components. First, both the original venue and the requested venue must be proper. Jumara, 55 F.3d at 878. Hence, venue is proper "(1) where the defendant resides, (2) where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, or (3) where personal jurisdiction may be had over any defendant if no other venue is proper." Park Inn Intern., LLC v. Mody Enters., Inc., 105 F.Supp.2d 370, 375 (D. N.J. 2000) (summarizing the statutory venue requirements of 28 U.S.C. §1391(a)). If venue is proper, the court must then undertake a balancing test to decide whether the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interest of justice would be better served by a transfer to a different forum. Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879; Coppola v. Ferrellgas, Inc., 250 F.R.D. 195, 197 (E.D. Pa. 2008). Although there is no definitive formula or specific list of the factors to consider, when determining whether a transfer is warranted, a court should weigh existing relevant private and public interests in its decision process. These interests are the following:
Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879-80 (citations omitted).
The party seeking the transfer bears the burden of establishing the need for the transfer. Id. at 879.
As noted above, and contrary to the suggestion in Plaintiff's response, Defendants seek transfer of this matter to the District of New Jersey pursuant to the forum non conveniens provision, 28 U.S.C. §1404(a), only, and not pursuant to §1406.
Notably, Plaintiff does not dispute that this case could have been brought in the District of New Jersey. As described above, Plaintiff's claims arise out of a slip and fall that occurred at a hotel in Trenton, New Jersey. As such, because "a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to [Plaintiff's] claims occurred" in the District of New Jersey, venue is proper in that District. See §1391(b)(2). Having made this determination, this Court will now consider the Jumara private and public factors to determine whether the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interest of justice weigh in favor of transfer.
As indicated, the private factors include the plaintiff's forum preference as manifested in the original choice; the defendant's forum preference; whether the claim arose elsewhere; the convenience of the parties as indicated by their relative physical and financial condition; the convenience of the witnesses — but only to the extent that the witnesses may actually be unavailable for trial in one of the fora; and the location of books and records (similarly limited to the extent that the files could not be produced in the alternative forum).
Although a plaintiff's choice of venue is generally given deference, the plaintiff's choice is not dispositive and receives less weight when none of the operative facts occurred in the selected forum. Coppola v. Ferrellgas, Inc., 250 F.R.D. 195, 197-98 (E.D. Pa. 2008); Rowles v. Hammermill Paper Co., Inc., 689 F.Supp. 494, 496 (E.D. Pa. 1988) (holding that "plaintiff's choice of forum merits less deference when none of the conduct complained of occurred in plaintiff's selected forum."). When "the chosen forum has little connection with the operative facts of the lawsuit, such that retaining the action conflicts with the interests in efficiency and convenience, other private interests are afforded less weight." Cancer Genetics, Inc. v. Kreatech Biotechnology B.V., 2007 WL 4365328, *5 (D. N.J. Dec. 11, 2007). A plaintiff's forum choice also receives "considerably less weight" where "the plaintiff chooses a forum which is not his home." Siegel v. Homestore, Inc., 255 F.Supp.2d 451, 456 (E.D. Pa. 2003) (citing Piper Aircraft Company v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 256 (1981)).
Here, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is not Plaintiff's home forum; rather, Plaintiff is a resident of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, which is located in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. In addition, and as described above, the operative facts relevant to Plaintiff's claims all occurred in Trenton, New Jersey. Since this forum does not have any connection with the operative facts of the lawsuit, and Plaintiff does not reside in this District, Plaintiff's choice of venue in this District is not afforded the usual strong preference or weight. Siegel, 255 F. Supp. 2d at 457.
Defendants have identified the District of New Jersey as their preferred forum. As noted, each of the Defendants maintains its principal place of business in New Jersey. In addition, Plaintiff's negligence claims arise out of a slip and fall that occurred in a hotel located in Trenton, New Jersey. As such, in light of the significant relationship between Defendants and the facts underlying Plaintiff's negligence claims and the state of New Jersey, Defendants' forum choice of the District of New Jersey weighs in favor of transfer.
The third factor — where a majority of events giving rise to the claim arose — also weighs in favor of transfer. As set forth, all of the events underlying Plaintiff's negligence claims occurred in New Jersey. As such, this factor weighs in favor of transfer to the District of New Jersey.
As noted, Defendants are limited liability companies, both of which maintain their principal places of business in Edison, New Jersey, while Plaintiff resides in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. In addition, the underlying slip and fall occurred at Defendants' hotel in Trenton, New Jersey. Obviously any travel by representatives from Defendants' principal places of business in Edison and/or from the Trenton-located hotel at which the alleged slip and fall occurred and the costs associated therewith would be less than the costs associated with Defendants' travel from these locations in New Jersey to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Though Plaintiff lives in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (a location that has no connection to the events underlying Plaintiff's negligence claims), the distance between Harrisburg and Trenton
The convenience of witnesses "is a particularly significant factor in a court's decision whether to transfer." Idasetima v. Wabash Metal Prods., Inc., 2001 WL 1526270, *2 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 29, 2001). Fact witnesses "`who possess[] firsthand knowledge of the events giving rise to the lawsuit, have traditionally weighed quite heavily in the `balance of convenience' analysis.'" Coppola, 250 F.R.D. at 199 (quoting Affymetrix, Inc. v. Synteni, Inc., 28 F.Supp.2d 192, 203 (D. Del. 1998)). However, under Jumara, this factor is only to be considered to the extent the witnesses may actually be unavailable for trial in one of the fora. Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879. Considering Defendants are all located in either Edison or Trenton, New Jersey, and the alleged slip and fall occurred in a hotel in Trenton, New Jersey, it is likely that most witnesses, if not all witnesses other than Plaintiff, will be located in the Trenton area of New Jersey. Defendants, however, have made no attempt to show that any anticipated witnesses would be unavailable for a trial in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Moreover, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(1)(a),
As to the final private factor, the location of books and records, "[t]echnical advances of recent years have significantly reduced the weight of this factor in the balance of convenience analysis. . . ." Lomanno v. Black, 285 F.Supp.2d 637, 647 (E.D. Pa. 2003). Thus, unless hard copies of documents are necessary to this litigation, this factor has a neutral effect.
Jumara describes the public interest factors to include: the enforceability of the judgment; practical considerations that could make the trial easy, expeditious, or inexpensive; the relative administrative difficulty in the two fora resulting from court congestion; the local interest in deciding local controversies at home; the public policies of the fora; and the familiarity of the trial judge with the applicable state law in diversity cases.
Neither party addresses the enforceability of judgment factor. Notwithstanding, it does not appear that a judgment by this Court would be unenforceable in New Jersey or, vice versa, that a judgment by the District Court of New Jersey would be unenforceable in Pennsylvania. Thus, this factor is neutral since both courts have the ability to enforce any judgments rendered.
As set forth above, most, if not all, of the facts underlying Plaintiff's alleged slip and fall claims occurred at the hotel located in Trenton, New Jersey. As a result, most of the witnesses (with the exception of Plaintiff, who does not live in this District) are likely to be located in or around Edison or Trenton, New Jersey, making a trial in that forum easier, more expeditious and less expensive. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of transfer.
Neither party has addressed the issue of court congestion. "Although the relative congestion of court dockets may be evaluated in a motion to transfer, it generally is not a factor worth of great weight." Penda Corp. v. STK, LLC, 2004 WL 2004439, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 7, 2004). This factor will, therefore, be deemed neutral.
While Pennsylvania certainly has an interest in protecting its citizens from the effect of the negligent acts that cause them injury outside this Commonwealth, the operative facts underlying the dispute at the heart of this matter occurred in Trenton, New Jersey. In addition, Defendants maintain their principal places of business in New Jersey. Thus, the State of New Jersey also has a significant interest in the parties' underlying disputes. This Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of transfer.
Because the operative facts underlying Plaintiff's negligence claim occurred in New Jersey, it is likely that New Jersey law will govern Plaintiff's claims. See e.g., Ramey v. Wal-Mart, Inc., 967 F.Supp. 843, 845 (E.D. Pa. 1997) (holding under Pennsylvania choice-of-law analysis that New Jersey law applied to a Pennsylvania plaintiff's negligence claims premised on underlying slip and fall that occurred in New Jersey); Ladenheim v. Starr Transit Company, Inc., 242 F.Supp.3d 395, 405-06 (E.D. Pa. 2017) (holding under Pennsylvania choice-of-law analysis that New Jersey law applies to a Pennsylvania plaintiff's negligence claim against New Jersey defendants premised on bus accident occurring in New Jersey); Lebegern v. Forman, 471 F.3d 424, 433-35 (3d Cir. 2006) (affirming application of New Jersey law under New Jersey choice-of-law analysis to claims premised on car accident occurring in New Jersey); Worster-Sims v. Tropicana Entertainment, Inc., 2014 WL 4978588, at *5-6 n.5 (D. N.J. Oct. 6, 2014) (holding under New Jersey's choice-of-law analysis that New Jersey law applies to negligence claim premised on conduct that occurred in New Jersey). While district courts are frequently called upon to interpret and apply the law of a state other than that in which they sit, when considering a motion to transfer venue, a "diversity case should be decided by the court most familiar with the applicable state law." Coppola, 250 F.R.D. at 201-02. This factor, therefore, weighs in favor of transfer.
After weighing all of the Jumara private and public factors, this Court finds that for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice, a transfer to the District of New Jersey is warranted. Therefore, Defendants' motion to transfer venue is granted. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion follows.