United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
UNIVEST CAPITAL, INC. Plaintiff,
AKIODE TRANSITIONS MHT LLC; OLADIMEJI AKIODE; and, ASCENTIUM CAPITAL, LLC Defendants.
Darnell Jones, II J.
pending before this Court are Defendant Akiode and Individual
Physician Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and/or Transfer
Venue (ECF Nos. 14, 17.),  Upon consideration of said Motions in
conjunction with Plaintiff's Response, this Court finds
that it is in the interests of justice to transfer this case
(as well as all matters consolidated therewith) to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Accordingly, Defendants' Motions to Transfer Venue shall
matter arises from contracts for loans Plaintiff entered into
with individual doctors and their guarantors. Said Defendants
allegedly defaulted on the loans and are now claiming
a business with its principal place of business in Bensalem,
Pennsylvania and incorporated in Pennsylvania, entered into
these contracts with Defendants- none of whom reside or
conduct business in Pennsylvania. Instead, most of the
defendants are located, or conduct their business, in Texas.
In fact, it is in Texas, where numerous Defendants in this
case have several class actions currently pending, all of
which directly involve the underlying facts of this
case. Subsequent to three of those lawsuits
being filed, Plaintiff herein commenced twenty-six law suits
in this District, against the same parties. Because of the
related nature of the Texas lawsuits that were filed before
the instant lawsuit was commenced and/or notice of same was
served upon all Defendants, United States District Judge Sam
A. Lindsay of the Northern District of Texas in Dallas
determined that consolidation was appropriate and is
currently presiding over all such matters. (Indv. Defs.'
Br. Supp. Mot. Ex. F.)
Standard of Review
“For 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).
“Section 1404(a) transfers are discretionary
determinations made for the convenience of the parties and
presuppose that the court has jurisdiction and that the case
has been made in the correct forum.” Lafferty v.
Gito St. Riel, 495 F.3d 72, 76 (3d Cir. 2007).
“The burden of establishing the need for transfer . . .
rests with the movant.” Jumara v. State Farm Ins.
Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir. 1995). The court should
consider the following factors when weighing a request to
transfer venue on the basis of convenience, including:
[T]he plaintiff's forum preferences; Defendant's
preferences; whether the claim arose elsewhere; the
convenience of the parties as indicated by their relative
physical and financial conditions; the convenience of
witnesses, but only to the extent that the witnesses may
actually be unavailable for trial in one of the fora, and the
location of books and records...[e]nforceability 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 at the fora, and the familiarity of trial
judges with the state law for diversity cases.
Aamco Transmission Inc. v. Johnson, 641 F.Supp.2d
464, 466 (E.D. Pa. 2009) (citing Jumara v. State Farm
Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir. 1995)).
“Whether to transfer a case is generally committed to
the discretion of the district courts.” In re
United States, 273 F.3d 380, 387 (3d Cir. 1995).
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue is proper in (1) “a
judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all
defendants are residents of the State in which the district
is located;” (2) “a judicial district in which a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to
the claims occurred, ” or (3) “if there is no
district in which an action may otherwise be brought as
provided in this section, any judicial district in which any
defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction
with respect to such action.” For purposes of §
1391(b), a corporate defendant resides in “any judicial
district in which such defendant is subject to the
court's personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil
action in question.” Id. § 1391(c)(2).
support of maintaining the instant ligation in this District,
Plaintiff relies upon the Forum Selection Clause contained
within the contracts signed by Defendants. Said Clause reads
in pertinent part as follows:
THIS IPA SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE LAWS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA WITHOUT
REGARD TO CONFLICT OF LAW PRINCIPLES. YOU AGREE THAT ANY
ACTION OR PROCEEDING TO WHICH WE ARE A PARTY ARISING DIRECTLY
OR INDIRECTLY FROM THIS IPA SHALL BE LITIGATED,
AT OUR OPTION, IN ANY STATE OF
FEDERAL COURT HAVING SITUS WITHIN BUCKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA