over two years from this date, if the case were transferred.
Plaintiff argues that his choice of forum should not be disturbed; that the decedent lived in the Chicago, Illinois, area at the time of his death; that medical records could be sent to the court from all hospitals; and that defendant has no witnesses which it will be compelled to bring to Philadelphia in order to defend this case, since it stated in answers to interrogatories that there were no witnesses to the alleged assault, which, as far as it knows, never occurred.
In considering this Motion, the court must consider 'the convenience of the parties and witnesses' and the interest of justice.
The court has considered all the facts and arguments presented by counsel for both parties and has determined that the ends of justice would be better served by having this case transferred. The transfer is ordered for the following reasons, as well as those stated above in the paragraph on pp. 1-3, among others:
A. The Marine Division of defendant corporation is situated in Mobile.
B. All personnel records relating to decedent's employment by defendant are in Mobile.
C. The alleged assailant, Voyd B. Burger, who is no longer in the permanent employ of defendant, is within the subpoena power of the United States District Court sitting at Mobile.
D. Some hospital records of decedent are in Mobile.
E. It would be more convenient for witnesses if the case is transferred.
F. The ends of justice would be better served by having this case tried promptly.
Promptness in reaching trial is of great importance in this case. This suit was not commenced until December 30, 1960, more than four years after the alleged injury, which plaintiff contends caused the decedent's death in October 1958. Under these circumstances, it is in the interests of justice that the case be tried as promptly as possible before the memories of such witnesses as are available have not become any fainter than they must be at this time.
If the case were tried in this district, the inconvenience to defendant would be grave. Cf. Biedrzycki v. Alcoa Steamship Co., Inc., D.C.E.D.Pa.1961, 191 F.Supp. 895, 897. Since the three statutory factors dictate transfer, the Motion will be granted, regardless of plaintiff's choice of forum. See Brown v. Woodring, D.C.M.D.Pa.1959, 174 F.Supp. 640, 645; Jurgelis v. Southern Motor Express Co., D.C.E.D.Pa.1959, 169 F.Supp. 345; cf. Continental Grain Co. v. Barge FBL-585, 1960, 364 U.S. 19, 27, 80 S. Ct. 1470, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1540; Norwood v. Kirkpatrick, 1955, 349 U.S. 29, 32, 75 S. Ct. 544, 99 L. Ed. 789. Cases relied on by plaintiff, such as Biedrzycki v. Alcoa Steamship Co., Inc., supra, Medich v. American Oil Company, D.C.E.D.Pa.1959, 177 F.Supp. 682 and Kontos v. The S.S. Sophie C., D.C.E.D.Pa.1960, 184 F.Supp. 835,
involved different factual situations than that now before this court.
The order attached to the Motion (Document No. 4) will be signed, transferring the action under 28 U.S.C.A. 1404(a). The briefs of counsel have been placed in the Clerk's file as Documents Nos. 14 and 15. The latter of July 6 from counsel for defendant is attached to Document No. 15.