Opinion
Civil Action No. 04-1579 SECTION K(1).
June 29, 2005
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the Renewed Motion to Transfer to the Middle District of Tennessee for the Convenience of Parties and the Witnesses and in the Interest of Justice (Doc. No. 44) filed by DaimlerChrysler Corporation. ("DDC"). In light of the dismissal of all Louisiana defendants, the Court finds that it must reconsider DDC's motion and finds merit therein.
Background
This case arises out of a fatal automobile accident that occurred on September 27, 2003, outside of Nashville, Tennessee which is located within the Middle District of Tennessee. It is alleged that a school bus loaded with 25 occupants swerved off the road to the right, over-corrected to the left, crossed the yellow highway dividing line, and slammed into an eastbound 1994 Dodge Caravan, which then smashed the Dodge Caravan into the path of travel of the eastbound Jeep Cherokee which is at issue in this case. Rosanne Rubin, a California resident, was a passenger in the center rear seat of the Jeep Cherokee which was being driven by Paula Hight. It is alleged that with the force of the impact, Rubin's body rotated violently around the lap belt placing all of the "restraint" forces on her abdomen, causing severe injuries. Emergency personnel rushed Rosanne Rubin to Vanderbilt University Hospital, where she died approximately 24 hours later. (Petition ¶ 5).
The Clarksville-Montgomery County School Board has filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and for Interpleader in which it has admitted that its employee's negligence was a cause of the accident out of which this matter arises and has filed the statutory damages available ($600,000) into the registry of that court.
The instant suit was brought by her husband individually and on behalf of her minor children in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans against DDC and Automotive Investments L.L.C., d/b/a Premier Buick-GMC ("Premier Buick"). It was removed to this Court, and Premier Buick was dismissed as being improperly joined. The Court allowed plaintiffs to amend to bring in Ducote Chrysler Jeep, LLC ("Ducote"), another Louisiana corporation, which initially sold the car in question. The Court subsequently dismissed Ducote as well. Based on the fact that all of the Louisiana defendants have now been dismissed, DDC again seeks to transfer this matter to the Middle District of Tennessee, the judicial district where the subject accident occurred, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Analysis
Section 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.28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Thus, a court must perform a two-pronged analysis to make this determination. It must first determine whether the district to which the transfer is sought is one in which the action could have originally been brought. Then, it must decide whether the transfer serves the convenience of the parties and the interests of justice. Morgan v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 2003 WL 1903344, *1 (E.D.La. April 14, 2003). While a plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed, where the plaintiff resides outside the forum that factor is given less weight. Id. at *3; Central States Welfare Fund v. Guarantee Trust Life, 8 F. Supp. 2d 1008, 1010-11 (N.D. Ohio 1998) (holding that because plaintiff's choice of forum was not its home forum choice of forum was given same weight as other factors). Burnstein v. Applied Extension Technologies, Inc., 829 F. Supp. 106, 110 (D. Del. 1992).
In the case at bar, it is clear that venue would lie in the Middle District of Tennessee. Thus the sole inquiry is whether a transfer serves the convenience of the parties and witness and the interest of justice. A forum non conveniens analysis focuses on the following private and public factors:
Private Factors
(1) the relative ease of access to sources of proof;
(2) the availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses;
(3) the cost of attendance for willing witnesses;
(4) all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.
Public Factors
(1) the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion;
(2) the local interest in having localized controversies decided at home;
(3) the familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case;
(4) the avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws of the application of foreign law.Piper Aricraft Co. v. Reno, 235, 257 (1981); Syndicate 420 at Lloyd's London v. Early Amer. Ins. Co., 796 F.2d 821, 831 (5th Cir. 1986).
Plaintiffs are California residents, thus their choice of forum is not accorded the same deference as it would had they been Louisiana residents. The Court initially denied the motion to transfer because of plaintiffs' personal factors; however, in light of the dismissal of the Louisiana defendants, that rationale cannot in all fairness continue to prevail. All of the material witnesses to accident are in the Middle District of Tennessee: (1) most importantly, the driver of the school bus; (2) nine officers from the Metro Nashville Police Department; (3) the medical providers for Rosanne Rubin at Vanderbilt University Hospital in Tennessee; (4) the driver of the Jeep; (5) the initial storage facility of the accident vehicle; and (6) the EMTS. Thus, Tennessee provides an easier access to proof; it allows for compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses; and it would be less expensive for the cost of attendance for willing witnesses. Furthermore, contrary to this Court's initial reliance on the factor that plaintiff's counsel resides in Louisiana, in In re Volkswagen AG, 307 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004), the Fifth Circuit held that the convenience of counsel does not appear in the statute and thus should not be a factor to be assessed in a court's determination.
In addition, as defendant well notes, while plaintiffs emphasize the role of experts as to the issue of causation, the jury will be called upon to decide which experts' opinions to accept in light of the testimony of the fact witnesses on whose testimony the experts have relied. Thus, fact testimony will be important, and if this matter were to be tried here, in all likelihood, much of the testimony would be by deposition or video deposition. Trial by video deposition is not convenient.
As to the public factors, certainly, Tennessee has the local interest in having localized controversies decided at home, and the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee has familiarity with the law that will govern the case. The Court would also note that no discovery has yet occurred, and the trial date is presently set for February 6, 2006. Thus, trial preparation has not begun, and trial is not imminent. Simply put, the great weight of the relevant factors militate the transferring of this matter to the Middle District of Tennessee. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Daimler Chrysler Corp.'s Renewed Motion to Transfer to the Middle of District of Tennessee for the Convenience of the Parties and Witnesses and in the Interest of Justice (Doc. 444) is GRANTED.