The opinion of the court was delivered by: KIM GIBSON, District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This case comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss or Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404. (Document
No. 6). Upon consideration of the record in the case sub
judice, the Defendant's unopposed motion, and the governing
legal principles set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1404, the Court shall
grant in part and deny in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
or Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 for the following
Jurisdiction is proper in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1332, in that all parties to the above-captioned civil action are
citizens of different states, and the subject matter in
controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.00, exclusive of
interest and costs. Specifically, Plaintiff is a Limited
Liability Company organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania with its principle place of business in
Pennsylvania, and Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of
$75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. Additionally, the
Defendant is a Limited Liability Company organized under the laws
of the State of South Carolina with its principal place of
business in South Carolina. BACKGROUND*fn1
The Plaintiff commenced the above-captioned civil action in the
Court of Common Pleas for the County of Clearfield, Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania, with the issuance of a Writ of Summons followed
by the filing of a Summons and Complaint on January 18, 2005.
(Document No. 1).
On or about May of 2003, the Defendant, "a newly formed South
Carolina limited liability company," attempted to locate sources
for production equipment for its anticipated operations.
(Document No. 6, Exhibit A.). One of the companies identified
during the Defendant's search was Backus USA, Inc.*fn2
(hereinafter "Backus USA"), "a food processing equipment supplier
with representatives in North Carolina and Pennsylvania." Id.
After initiating contact with Backus USA, a representative from
Backus USA traveled to South Carolina to meet with personnel from
the Defendant company. At that time, Backus USA provided to the
Defendant estimated costs on various pieces of equipment. Id.
Over the next several months, Backus USA actively sought the
Defendant's business by continuing to meet with Defendant
personnel in South Carolina. Additionally, Backus USA
representative, David Knox, visited a building in South Carolina
that was under consideration by the Defendant as a potential site
for the Defendant's plant operations. (Document No. 6, Exhibit
A). Thereafter, Backus USA President, Larry Salone, accompanied
Mr. Knox on a subsequent visit to the Defendant operation site in order to gather
information and provide a comprehensive quote to the Defendant.
On or about March 23, 2004, "Backus USA  and the Defendant
entered into an agreement in which [the] Defendant agreed to
purchase an onion processing line and pepper processing line from
Backus USA." (Document No. 1, Exhibit 1). One of Backus USA's
responsibilities, inter alia, under the terms of the contract
was to deliver equipment to the Defendant in South Carolina.
(Document No. 6, Exhibit A). Once the equipment arrived, Backus
USA agreed to install, integrate, and debug the equipment, as
well as train the Defendant's employees. Id.
Subsequent to the parties entering into the agreement on March
23, 2004, the Plaintiff, Freshtec, alleges that Backus USA
assigned all if its right, title and interest in the contract to
the Plaintiff. (Document No. 1, Exhibit 1). Similarly, the
Defendant contends that it "understood that the equipment to be
supplied as part of the contract [between Backus USA and
Defendant] would be coming from a variety of manufacturers."
(Document No. 6, Exhibit D). In fact, "the vast majority of the
equipment was to be supplied by various companies from other
states[,] as well as overseas." Id. Also, some of the equipment
and machines were to be supplied by the Plaintiff.*fn3 Id.
During the course of the business relationship between the
Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant failed to fulfill Defendant's responsibilities under
the terms of the contract. Id. For example, the Plaintiff
alleges that the "Defendant failed to provide assistance to Plaintiff for the various components necessary to finish the
onion and pepper processing lines." (Document No. 1, Exhibit 1, ¶
8). Additionally, the Plaintiff asserts that the "Defendant
failed to pay Plaintiff for the $30,000.00 in shipping expenses
that [P]laintiff has incurred to date." Id. at ¶ 9.
Consequently, based upon the Defendant's alleged indication to
the Plaintiff that "it does not intend to pay Plaintiff the
amount due Plaintiff under the contract," Plaintiff filed the
above-captioned action against the Defendant for "anticipatory
breach of the contract entitling Plaintiff to the full amount it
would be entitled to under the contract." Id. at ¶¶ 12-13.
On May 13, 2005, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, or, in the Alternative to Transfer
Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404. Although the Court has
granted Plaintiff sufficient time in which to respond to
Defendant's motion, the Plaintiff failed to file a response in
opposition to the motion, as required by Local Rule of Civil
Initially, the Court observes that 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) governs
transfer requests and 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." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 878 (3d Cir. 1995);
Rappoport v. Steven Spielberg, Inc., 16 F.Supp.2d 481, 497-98
(D.N.J. 1998). "The purpose of § 1404(a) is to avoid the waste of
time, energy and money and, in addition to safe guard litigants,
witnesses and the public against avoidable inconvenience and
expense." Rappoport, 16 F.Supp.2d at 497. The party moving to
transfer venue bears the burden of establishing the need for a
transfer of venue; however, such motions "are not to be liberally
granted as the plaintiff's choice of venue is not to be lightly disturbed."*fn4 National Paintball
Supply, Inc. v. Cossio, 996 F.Supp. 459, 462 (E.D. Pa. 1998).
The Court observes that the Third Circuit has set forth that
the "choice of forum by a plaintiff is normally a `paramount
concern' in deciding a motion to transfer venue." Rappoport,
16 F.Supp. at 499 (citing Honeywell, 817 F.Supp. at 480). The
choice of forum by a plaintiff "is `entitled to greater
deference' when a plaintiff chooses its home forum." Id.
Indeed, "[t]he forum chosen by a plaintiff is considered to be
presumptively correct." Rappoport, 16 F.Supp. at 499. However,
this presumption is not dispositive. American Tel. & Tel. Co. v.
MCI Communications Corp., 736 F.Supp. 1294, ...