United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GERALD AUSTIN MCHUGH, District Judge.
The Defendant has brought a Motion to Transfer Venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) seeking to transfer venue from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the District of New Jersey in Trenton. When evaluating such a motion, the movant bears the burden of establishing the need for transfer. Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co. , 55 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir. 1995). Here, I find that this burden has not been met.
The Plaintiff in this case has chosen to litigate in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, a venue that is proper, and "[i]n the Third Circuit, a plaintiff's choice of forum is a paramount concern in deciding a motion to transfer venue and should not be lightly disturbed." Endless Pools, Inc. v. Wave Tec Pools, Inc. , 362 F.Supp.2d 578, 586 (E.D. Pa. 2005); Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp. , 431 F.2d 22, 25 (3d Cir. 1970). Where the plaintiff chooses to litigate in his or her home forum, as she does here, "the choice is entitled to great deference." Endless Pools, Inc. , 362 F.Supp.2d at 586-87 (citing Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno , 454 U.S. 235, 255 (1981)).
The two courthouses are approximately 35 miles apart by vehicle, and there is efficient transit available from one location to the other. It seems inconceivable that a witness would be unavailable for trial in one location but not the other. All of the other reasons offered for the venue transfer are outweighed by the great import attached to the ...