United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
WILFRED A. BOULDIN
CURTIS D. DRUDGE and PASCHALL TRUCK LINES, INC.
removing this personal injury action from the Philadelphia
Court of Common Pleas, defendants Curtis Drudge and Paschall
Truck Lines, Inc., have moved to transfer it to the Middle
District of Pennsylvania where the accident occurred.
Balancing the private and public interest factors of
convenience and fairness weighs in favor of transfer.
Therefore, we shall grant the motion.
and Procedural Background
incident giving rise to this action occurred in the parking
lot of a truck stop in Greencastle, Franklin County,
Pennsylvania. In his complaint, Bouldin alleges that on
November 23, 2015, while walking across the parking lot to
enter the TA Greencastle #213 truck stop, he was struck by
the tractor-trailer driven by Drudge and owned by
Paschall. Bouldin claims he sustained fractures of
his right hip and tibia, and suffered two herniated
the parties are residents of Pennsylvania. Bouldin resides in
Charlotte, North Carolina. Drudge is an Indiana
resident. Paschall is incorporated in and has its
principal place of business in Kentucky. The only
identified eyewitness to the collision, Joseph B. Fox,
resides in New York.
is determined as follows: (1) when all defendants reside in
the same state in which the district is located, the district
within which any defendant resides; (2) the district where a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to
the claim occurred; or (3) where there is no other district
in which the action can be brought, the district, not the
state, where a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction
at the time the action is commenced. 28 U.S.C. §§
1391(b)(1)-(3). The third basis is a fallback provision that
applies only if venue is not available in any district under
(b)(1) or (b)(2).
defendants have not moved to dismiss the action for lack of
venue. Instead, they have moved to transfer venue under 28
U.S.C. § 1404(a) for the convenience of the parties and
witnesses. Thus, we shall address transfer under section
1404(a) without considering dismissal or transfer under 28
U.S.C. § 1406(a).
defendant moving for transfer of venue bears the burden of
demonstrating that (1) the case could have been brought
initially in the proposed transferee forum; (2) the proposed
transfer will be more convenient for the parties and
witnesses; and (3) the proposed transfer will be in the
interest of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); Jumara v.
State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir.
1995); Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp., 431 F.2d 22, 25
(3d Cir. 1970).
could have brought his action in the Middle District. All of
the events giving rise to the claim took place there.
the defendant establishes that the action could have been
brought in the proposed district, the court must weigh
several private and public interest factors to determine
whether the balance of convenience tips in favor of transfer.
Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879-80. Among the factors
considered when determining whether transfer is more
convenient for the parties and in the interest of justice
are: (1) the plaintiff's choice of forum; (2) the
defendant's preferred forum; (3) the place where the
claim arose; (4) the relative ease of access to the sources
of proof; (5) the convenience of the parties in light of
their relative financial status and physical location; (6)
the availability of compulsory process for the attendance of
witnesses; (7) the convenience of the witnesses; (8) the
practical problems that make trial of a case expensive and
inefficient; and (9) “public interest” factors,
such as congestion of court dockets and the relationship of
the jury and the community to the underlying district.
Id. Depending on the nature and the facts of the
case, these factors overlap and are intertwined.
the analysis involved is “flexible and individualized,
” the court has broad discretion in deciding a motion
for transfer of venue. Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh
Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988). Despite this wide
latitude, a transfer motion is not to be granted without a
careful weighing of factors favoring and disfavoring
transfer. See Shutte, 431 F.2d at 24-25.
plaintiff's choice of forum
plaintiff's choice of forum typically receives
“paramount consideration.” Id. at 25.
However, the plaintiff's choice is given less deference
where he does not live in the forum and none of the operative
facts occurred there. Buckeye Pennsauken ...