United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
JOY FLOWERS CONTI, Chief District Judge.
At a hearing held on October 14, 2014, the court sua sponte notified the parties in this action that it was considering transferring this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania ("Western District") to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ("Middle District"). The civil actions filed in the Middle District, and consolidated at civil action number 09-CV-286, and in this court involve many of the same parties, many of the same issues, and are premised on similar factual averments. The plaintiffs in both actions are seeking to obtain monetary recovery from the defendants and assert many of the same claims and arguments. The court requested that the parties submit briefs concerning the transfer of this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). On October 21, 2014, Western PA Child Care, LLC, PA Child Care, LLC, Mid-Atlantic Youth Services Corp., Consulting Innovations and Services, Inc., Gladstone Partners, LP, and Gregory R. Zappala ("plaintiffs") filed their brief in support of a transfer of this case to the Middle District. (ECF No. 156.) On October 21, 2014, Jill Moran and the Powell Law Group, P.C., ("Moran defendants") and Robert J. Powell, Debra Powell, and Vision Holdings, LLC ("Powell defendants" and together with the Moran defendants "defendants") filed their briefs in opposition. (ECF Nos. 157, 158, respectively.) At a status conference held on October 24, 2014, the court granted the parties the right to file supplemental briefs and on October 28, 2014, plaintiffs filed their supplemental brief in support of the transfer, (ECF No. 166), and defendants filed a collective supplemental brief in opposition to the transfer. (ECF No. 165.) Having been fully briefed, the issue is ripe for disposition.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
1. Western District Action
On July 18, 2014, plaintiffs filed a nineteen-count complaint in the Western District against defendants alleging that defendants engaged in illegal activity to steal millions of dollars through a vast criminal enterprise. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs alleged that defendants falsified the cost of constructing juvenile detention facilities to obtain millions of dollars in additional loans and pocketed the difference. (Id.) Plaintiffs also allege that Robert Powell bribed Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas officials for favorable rulings when defendants had an interest at stake. (Id.) Based on these two major theories, plaintiffs asserted fifteen counts under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. § 1964, and four counts of state law claims for unjust enrichment. (Id.)
2. Middle District Action
The civil action in the Middle District, under the caption Wallace v. Powell, is a consolidation of cases, the first of which was filed on February 13, 2009. Wallace v. Powell, 3:09-CV-286, 2014 WL 3109201, at *1 (M.D. Pa. July 7, 2014). The claims in the consolidated cases arise out of the same alleged conspiracy. (Id.)
Plaintiffs in this action, juveniles or the parents of juveniles who appeared before [a Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, Court of Common Please Judge] [and were sentenced to either PA Child Care or Western PA Child Care], seek redress from the former judges, as well as the individuals and business entities involved in the construction and operation of these facilities, for the alleged unlawful conspiracy and resulting deprivations of Juvenile Plaintiffs' rights." (Id.) The individual and class complaints assert, in part, the following causes of action against Provider Defendants: (1) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims alleging a conspiracy to violate Plaintiffs' constitutional rights; (3) violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961, et seq.; (3) conspiracy to violate RICO; (4) state-law civil conspiracy; and (5) state-law false imprisonment.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A. The Court's Sua Sponte Motion to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides:
For 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 or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.
"The procedure for obtaining transfer of a civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is by motion. The language of the statute is broad enough that a district court can order transfer on its own initiative." 15 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, Edward H. Cooper & Richard D. Freer, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3884 (4th ed. 2013) [hereinafter Wright & Miller]; see Union Elec. Co. v. Energy Ins. Mut. Ltd., 689 F.3d 968, 972 (8th Cir. 2012); Nalls v. Coleman Low Fed. Inst., 440 F.Appx. 704, 706 (11th Cir. 2011); Shisinday v. Texas Dep't of Criminal Justice-Agency, 124 F.Appx. 898, 899 (5th Cir. 2005); In re Cox, 00-7194, 2000 WL 1683506 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 19, 2000).
The Third Circuit has not decided whether a district court may transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) on its own motion. District Courts within this Circuit have held that when no motion to transfer to a more convenient venue has been filed, the Court may sua sponte transfer the case, but only after first providing the parties with an opportunity to brief the transfer issue.
Day v. 21st Century Centennial Ins. Co., Civ. No. 12-1096-LPS, 2014 WL 3909533, at *1 (D. Del. Aug. 11, 2014) (citing Johnson v. U.S. Bancorp, Civ. No. 10-1072-LPS, 2012 WL 1133689, at *4 (D. Del. Mar. 30, 2012) compare with Swindell-Dressler Corp. v. Dumbauld, 308 F.2d 267, 273-74 (3d Cir. 1962) (vacating the district court's transfer order because "no notice, hearing or opportunity to be heard as to transfer under Section 1404(a) was afforded").
To fulfill the notice requirement parties should be advised that the court may transfer the case and be allowed an "opportunity to file objections" to the proposed transfer. Jackson v. Murphy, Civ. No. 08-585, 2008 WL 2566530, at *1 n.2 (W.D. Pa. June 26, 2008).
B. Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
"Section 1404(a) is intended to place discretion in the district court to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.'" York Grp., Inc. v. Pontone, Civ. No. 10-1078, 2014 WL 3735157, at *2 (W.D. Pa. July 28, 2014) (quoting Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988)). A transfer, however, "is not to be liberally granted." Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp., 431 F.2d 22, 25 (3d Cir. 1970). A movant bears the burden of establishing the need for transfer, and "unless the balance of convenience of the parties is strongly in favor of [the movant], the plaintiff's choice of forum should prevail.'" Id . (quoting Owatonna Mfg. Co. v. Mel roe Co., 301 F.Supp. 1296, 1307 (D. Minn.1969)); see Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir.1995).
A court considering a motion to transfer venue performs a two-part analysis. First, the court must decide whether the district to which the movant seeks to transfer the case has proper jurisdiction and venue, i.e., could the case have been brought in the transferee district in the first instance. Lawrence v. Xerox Corp., 56 F.Supp.2d 442, 450-451 (D.N.J.1999). Second, the court applies a number ...