Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fuentes v. AMC Entertainment Holdings

April 5, 2010

THOMAS FUENTES, PLAINTIFF,
v.
AMC ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS, INC. D/B/A, T/A LOWE'S THEATERS, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joyner, J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This case has been brought before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue (Doc. No. 12). For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum, Defendant's request shall be DENIED.

Background

Plaintiff seeks damages for an incident that occurred on January 18, 2009, at one of Defendant's locations in Danbury, Connecticut. On that day, Plaintiff slipped and fell on Defendant's property due to the "accumulation of water, ice, snow and/or other foreign substances" on the floor in the entryway of Defendant's theater. Plaintiff alleges that, as a result of this fall, he has suffered a laceration inside his mouth and lip, loosened teeth, chronic headaches, injuries to his back, and some numbness in fingers of both hands. Immediately following the accident, Plaintiff received treatment in the state of Connecticut, and then has continued to receive treatment in his home state of Pennsylvania.

Plaintiff filed this action in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania on November 5, 2009. Defendant then removed this case to federal court on December 7, 2009. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court on the basis of diversity of citizenship, as Plaintiff is a Pennsylvania citizen, and Defendant is a citizen of Delaware and Missouri. Defendant has now filed a Motion to Transfer Venue to the District of Connecticut.

Standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), "[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 may have been brought." In order to transfer venue, the Court must first determine that venue is proper in both the original venue and the proposed transferee venue. Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 878 (3d Cir. 1995). Once this has been established, the defendant bears the burden of showing, on the balance of identified public and private factors, that considerations weigh "strongly" in favor of transfer. Gulf Oil v. Gilbert, 55 U.S. 501, 508 (1947). The complete list of private factors set forth in Gulf Oil was further articulated by the Third Circuit in Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879, and includes,

[T]he plaintiff's forum preference; defendant's preference; whether the claim arose elsewhere; the convenience of the parties as indicated by their relative physical and financial conditions; the convenience of the witnesses, but only to the extent that the witnesses may actually be unavailable for trial in one of the fora; and the locations of the books and records.

Named public factors include,

Enforceability of judgment; practical considerations that could make the trial easy, expeditious or inexpensive; the relative administrative difficulty in the two fora resulting from court congestion; the local interest in deciding local controversies at home; the public policies of the fora; and the familiarity of trial judges with the state law for diversity cases. Id.

Within this framework, courts have given great deference to the plaintiff's choice of forum. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 255 (1981); Kielczynski v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 837 F. Supp. 687, 689 (E.D. Pa. 1993). Additionally, "the convenience of counsel is not a factor to be considered" in deciding a motion to transfer venue. Solomon v. Continental Am. Life Ins. Co., 472 F.2d 1043, 1047 (3d Cir. 1973).

Discussion

As an initial matter, venue is proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Defendant "resides" in Pennsylvania, as it is a corporation and is subject to personal jurisdiction in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania due to its operation of multiple locations within this district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). Given that Defendant resides in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and is the only defendant in this case, venue is proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(1). Venue is also proper, however, in the District of Connecticut, as this is the district in which a substantial part of the claim arose. Id. § 1391(a)(2). Given that venue is appropriate in both this district and the proposed ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.