The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ambrose, Chief District Judge.
OPINION and ORDER OF COURT
Defendant, a Georgia corporation, seeks a transfer of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Putative Class Action Plaintiffs, one a resident of Pennsylvania and one a resident of California, oppose transfer. I find that the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interest of justice would best be served by a transfer. The Motion is granted.
The Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act ("FACTA") is an amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). Section 1681c(g)(1) of FACTA provides that "no person that accepts credit cards or debit cards for the transaction of business shall print more than the last five digits of the card number or the expiration date upon any receipt ... ." 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g)(1).*fn1 Defendant The Paradies Shops, Inc. ("Paradies") owns and operates airport gift shops in airports around the United States. Thus, although Paradies is a Georgia corporation, with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, it owns shops in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Columbia, South Carolina; Dallas, Texas; Des Moines, Iowa; Harlingen, Texas; Albany, New York; Providence, Rhode Island; Indianapolis, Indiana; Nashville, Tennessee; Palm Beach, Florida; Islip, New York; Reno, Nevada; Spokane, Washington; Lexington, Kentucky; Long Beach, Burbank and San Francisco, California.*fn2
Plaintiffs Melanie Klingensmith, a Pennsylvania resident, and Paul Kelly,*fn3 a California resident, purport to bring this action on behalf of a national class of debit and credit card holders who transacted business with Paradies and who received receipts that contained more than the last five digits of the card number and /or the expiration date on the receipts. Klingensmith and Kelly contend that Paradies willfully violated FACTA in this regard. Though they do not claim to have become victims of identity theft of credit / debit card fraud, they claim that Paradies' conscious disregard of FACTA's requirements exposed them to such risks. They seek on their own behalf, and on behalf of the putative class members, statutory damages in the amount of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000 for each violation and the costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees.
Paradies has filed a Motion to Transfer Venue To The Northern District of Georgia and Motion to Stay Discovery. See Docket No. . Paradies urges that because all of the key witnesses, the locus of facts and the documents are located outside of this judicial district, and because Paradies' headquarters is in Atlanta, Georgia, a transfer is warranted. Klingensmith and Kelly oppose transfer. For the reasons set forth below, I find that a transfer is appropriate.
Paradies seeks a transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Section 1404(a) provides that "[f]or the convenience of the 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). Thus, § 1404(a) contemplates a two step inquiry: (1) determining first whether venue would be proper in the proposed forum; and (2) whether the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice would be served by a transfer to the proposed forum. Here, there is no dispute that venue would be appropriate in the proposed forum. See Docket No. , p. 1. Paradies "resides" in Atlanta. Consequently, transfer depends upon "the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice."
The Third Circuit Court has provided an extensive list of both private and public factors to consider in assessing whether the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice would be furthered by a transfer:
(1) the plaintiff's choice of forum; (2) the defendant's choice of forum; (3) where the claim arose; (4) "convenience of the parties as indicated by their relative physical and financial conditions"; (5) "the convenience of the witnesses - but only to the extent that the witnesses may actually be unavailable for trial in one of the fora"; (6) the location of books and records; (7) the enforceability of the judgment; (8) practical considerations that could expedite or simplify trial; (9) the level of court congestion in the two fora; (10) "the local interest in deciding local controversies at home: (11) the public policies of the fora; and (12) in a diversity case, the familiarity of the two courts with state law.
In re Amendt, 169 Fed. Appx. 93, 96 (3d Cir. 2006), citing, Jumara v. State Farms Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879-80 (3d Cir. 1995). "The burden of showing a need for transfer is on the movant." Id.
I turn first to a consideration of the private factors. Typically, a plaintiff's choice of venue is entitled to deference and should not be lightly disturbed. Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp., 431 F.2d 22, 25 (3d Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 910 (1971). Klingensmith's choice of forum is obviously Pennsylvania. She resides in Pennsylvania and apparently her cause of action arose here. Kelly's choice of forum, while initially California, is now apparently Pennsylvania. However, he does not reside in Pennsylvania and it does not appear that his cause of action arose in Pennsylvania. Because of this, Klingensmith's and Kelly's choice of forum would be entitled to somewhat less weight.
Further, and more significantly, Klingensmith and Kelly are putative class plaintiffs. "The United States Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff's choice of forum should be accorded less deference in class action suits since all members of the class could conceivably bring suit in his or her home forum." Howell v. Shaw Industries, Civ. No. 93-2068, 1993 WL 387901 at * 3 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 1, 1993), citing, Koster v. (American) Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 330 U.S. 518, 524, 67 S.Ct. 828 (1947); see also All Terrain Vehicles Litigation, Civ. No. 88-237, 1989 WL 30948 at * 3 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 23, 1989); Donnelly v. Klosters Rederi A/S, 515 F. Supp. 5, 6 (E.D. Pa. 1981); Impervious Paint Industries Ltd. v. Ashland Oil, Inc., 444 F. Supp. 465 (E.D. Pa. 1978); and Goodman v. Fleischmann, 364 F. Supp. 1172, 1176 (E.D. Pa. 1973). I find that Klingensmith's and Kelly's choice of forum is entitled to even less deference here where the Paradies shops are located nationwide. There is every expectation that there will be more plaintiffs residing outside of Pennsylvania than within and that more causes of action will have arisen outside of Pennsylvania than within. Paradies has submitted evidence indicating that its shop located within this forum accounts for less than 10% of its business. See Docket No. [27-14], ¶ 5. Accordingly, more than 90% of the causes of action (and thus possibly plaintiffs) arose somewhere other than this forum. Further, despite ...