The opinion of the court was delivered by: HANNUM
The defendant has moved to transfer this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the Eastern District of Missouri.
This motion is denied.
This action was brought on bonds issued by the defendant insurance company which indemnified plaintiff against loss sustained through any dishonest, fraudulent or criminal act of any of its employees. The plaintiff alleges that a former employee of a wholly owned subsidiary committed or caused the commission of defalcations or other dishonest acts which resulted in a loss to the plaintiff in the amount of $34,805.32. The plaintiff has submitted a claim under the said bonds which the defendant has refused to pay.
In the motion for transfer, the defendant has filed an affidavit setting forth the following:
1. The employee charged with dishonesty lives in St. Louis, Missouri, as do most of its material witnesses.
2. The former employee charged with the commission of dishonest acts denies any wrongdoing or committing any acts alleged in plaintiff's complaint.
3. The relevant documents are located in East St. Louis, Illinois.
4. The acts of dishonesty, if any, occurred in Missouri and Illinois.
The alleged defalcations or dishonest acts relate to an agreement of June 15, 1965 in which plaintiff's subsidiary, Atlas of Illinois, Inc., extended Alamo Credit Corporation, an Illinois Corporation with offices in East St. Louis, Illinois, a $500,000 Line of Credit. Under the terms of the loan agreement, certain of Alamo Credit Corporation's assets, such as notes, mortgages, security deeds, deeds of trust and other types of secured time payment papers were assigned to Atlas. The alleged dishonesty relates to the above described documents. The Agreement provides that it is to be construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Plaintiff has filed counter-affidavits in which they have set forth the following:
1. The insurance contracts which have been sued upon were executed in Pennsylvania and all premiums required to be paid thereunder have been paid to the defendant's agent in Pennsylvania.
2. The defendant is registered to do business in Pennsylvania.
3. The witnesses who uncovered the loss and investigated the fraudulent scheme are located ...