the plaintiff chooses a forum which is neither his home nor the
situs of the occurrence upon which the suit is based.
Jordan v. Delaware & Hudson Railway Co., 590 F. Supp. 997, 998
(E.D.Pa. 1984). In considering convenience, the courts should
consider the parties' residences, the residence of potential
witnesses, the situs of events giving rise to the lawsuit, the
location of records and documents and all other practical
problems that make the trial of a case easy, expeditious, and
Applying these principles to the case at hand, we first
observe that since 1989, when Plaintiff's predecessor commenced
its loan relationship with MM Group, and continuing to the
present day, neither Plaintiff nor its predecessor has
maintained a place of business in Ohio. We note that a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the
claim occurred in Philadelphia.*fn2 Plaintiff contends that MM
Group came to Philadelphia in 1989 to obtain loans for radio
stations and began its loan relationship with Plaintiff's
predecessor in this city. The loans were administered and
amended in Pennsylvania, the loans and documents evidencing
them were closed in Pennsylvania, and the tax at issue was paid
to the IRS in Pennsylvania. Furthermore, the loan documents
evidence Litton and Casagrande's consent to jurisdiction in the
courts located in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and venue in
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Although a forum
selection clause does not carry dispositive weight, it is given
substantial consideration in determining the most proper venue.
Jumara, 55 F.3d at 880. Clearly, venue lies in the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.
In regard to the convenience factors, Plaintiff asserts the
following: six of the eight witnesses that it presently intends
to call are located within 100 miles of this Court; Defendant
intends to call only two witnesses, Litton and Casagrande, who
are located more than 100 miles from this Court. We agree with
Plaintiff's argument that some witnesses will be required to
travel whether this case is adjudicated in Ohio or in
Pennsylvania. Given these facts, the convenience factor weighs
in favor of venue in this Court.
Furthermore, this Court's recent granting of Plaintiff's
Motion to Amend Complaint alleviates Defendant's concern about
litigating the same issues and facts in two forums. Once
Plaintiff joins Litton and Casagrande as additional defendants
to its suit, Defendant can bring any cross-claims against
Litton and Casagrande "arising out of the transaction or
occurrence that is the subject matter either of the original
action or of a counterclaim therein. . . ." Fed.R.Civ.P. 13(g).
See also Taubman v. United States, 499 F. Supp. 1133 (E.D.Mich.
1978), aff'd 635 F.2d 1215 (6th Cir. 1980); Commonwealth Nat'l
Bank v. United States, 665 F.2d 743 (5th Cir. 1982).
In view of all of the foregoing, we cannot find that the
defendant has met its burden of showing that the interests of
justice and convenience of the parties and witnesses are best
served through a transfer of this case to the Southern District
of Ohio. For these reasons, the motion to transfer venue will
be denied pursuant to the attached order.
AND NOW, this 25th day of June, 1999, upon consideration of
Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue and Plaintiff's Response
thereto, it is hereby ordered that the Motion is DENIED for the
reasons set forth in the preceding Memorandum.