[CLBS] Forum non conveniens case

Fri Feb 7 22:54:23 MST 2020

After all the repeated Burley jokes today and yesterday, I provide you this
Judge Kent case on forum non conveniens.  I hope you get a good laugh out
of it too.  My response email last year echoed some of this decision.

Paul

KENT
<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW9.01&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&tc=-1&docname=0159463701&ordoc=1996252691&findtype=h&db=PROFILER-WLD&vr=2.0&rp=/find/default.wl>,
District Judge.
This is a breach of contract case based on an insurance contract entered
into by Plaintiff and Defendant. Now before the Court is Defendant’s
October 11, 1996 Motion to Transfer Venue from the Galveston Division to
the Houston Division of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW9.01&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&tc=-1&docname=28USCAS1404&ordoc=1996252691&findtype=L&db=1000546&vr=2.0&rp=/find/default.wl>.
For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is *DENIED.*
[1]
<http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?service=Find&rs=LAWS2.0&cnt=DOC&ifm=NotSet&n=1&fn=_top&sv=Split&rlti=1&cxt=DC&rlt=CLID_FQRLT15483493511151&ss=CNT&scxt=WL&vr=1.0&rp=/Find/default.wl&cite=943fsupp782#F11996252691>
[image:
Headnote Citing References]
<http://web2.westlaw.com/KCNotes/default.wl?serialnum=1996252691&rs=LAWS2.0&service=Find&ifm=NotSet&n=1&fn=_top&sv=Split&rlti=1&locatestring=HD%28001%29,CL%28H,O%29,DC%28A,L,O,D,G%29,DT%28E,D,C,M%29&rlt=CLID_FQRLT15483493511151&vr=1.0&rp=/KCNotes/default.wl>
[2]
<http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?service=Find&rs=LAWS2.0&cnt=DOC&ifm=NotSet&n=1&fn=_top&sv=Split&rlti=1&cxt=DC&rlt=CLID_FQRLT15483493511151&ss=CNT&scxt=WL&vr=1.0&rp=/Find/default.wl&cite=943fsupp782#F21996252691>
[image:
Headnote Citing References]
<http://web2.westlaw.com/KCNotes/default.wl?serialnum=1996252691&rs=LAWS2.0&service=Find&ifm=NotSet&n=1&fn=_top&sv=Split&rlti=1&locatestring=HD%28002%29,CL%28H,O%29,DC%28A,L,O,D,G%29,DT%28E,D,C,M%29&rlt=CLID_FQRLT15483493511151&vr=1.0&rp=/KCNotes/default.wl>
Section
1404(a)
<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW9.01&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&tc=-1&docname=28USCAS1404&ordoc=1996252691&findtype=L&db=1000546&vr=2.0&rp=/find/default.wl>
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)
<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW9.01&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&tc=-1&docname=28USCAS1404&ordoc=1996252691&findtype=L&db=1000546&vr=2.0&rp=/find/default.wl>.
The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating to the District Court that
it should, in its sound discretion, decide to transfer the action. *Peteet
v. Dow Chemical Co.,* 868 F.2d 1428, 1436 (5th Cir.)
<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&serialnum=1989042026&rs=WLW9.01&referencepositiontype=S&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&referenceposition=1436&findtype=Y&tc=-1&ordoc=1996252691&db=350&vr=2.0&rp=/find/default.wl>
(holding that the decision whether to transfer rests with the sound
discretion of the District Court), *cert. denied,* 493 U.S. 935, 110 S.Ct.
328, 107 L.Ed.2d 318 (1989)
<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&serialnum=1989139780&rs=WLW9.01&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&tc=-1&findtype=Y&ordoc=1996252691&db=708&vr=2.0&rp=/find/default.wl>;
*Time, Inc. v. Manning,* 366 F.2d 690, 698 (5th Cir.1966)
<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&serialnum=1966122490&rs=WLW9.01&referencepositiontype=S&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&referenceposition=698&findtype=Y&tc=-1&ordoc=1996252691&db=350&vr=2.0&rp=/find/default.wl>
(holding that the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the
action should be transferred). The Court weighs the following factors to
decide whether a transfer is warranted: the availability and convenience of
witnesses and parties, the location of counsel, the location of books and
records, the cost of obtaining attendance of witnesses and other trial
expenses, the place of the alleged wrong, the possibility of delay and
prejudice if transfer is granted, and the plaintiff’s choice of forum,
which is generally entitled to great deference. *E.g., **Dupre v. Spanier
Marine Corp.,* 810 F.Supp. 823, 825 (S.D.Tex.1993)
<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&serialnum=1993029011&rs=WLW9.01&referencepositiontype=S&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&referenceposition=825&findtype=Y&tc=-1&ordoc=1996252691&db=345&vr=2.0&rp=/find/default.wl>;
*Continental Airlines v. American Airlines,* 805 F.Supp. 1392, 1395-96
(S.D.Tex.1992)
<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&serialnum=1992197441&rs=WLW9.01&referencepositiontype=S&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&referenceposition=1395&findtype=Y&tc=-1&ordoc=1996252691&db=345&vr=2.0&rp=/find/default.wl>
(discussing the importance of the plaintiff’s choice of forum in light of
the policies underlying § 1404(a)
<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW9.01&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&tc=-1&docname=28USCAS1404&ordoc=1996252691&findtype=L&db=1000546&vr=2.0&rp=/find/default.wl>
).
[3]
<http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?service=Find&rs=LAWS2.0&cnt=DOC&ifm=NotSet&n=1&fn=_top&sv=Split&rlti=1&cxt=DC&rlt=CLID_FQRLT15483493511151&ss=CNT&scxt=WL&vr=1.0&rp=/Find/default.wl&cite=943fsupp782#F31996252691>
[image:
Headnote Citing References]
<http://web2.westlaw.com/KCNotes/default.wl?serialnum=1996252691&rs=LAWS2.0&service=Find&ifm=NotSet&n=1&fn=_top&sv=Split&rlti=1&locatestring=HD%28003%29,CL%28H,O%29,DC%28A,L,O,D,G%29,DT%28E,D,C,M%29&rlt=CLID_FQRLT15483493511151&vr=1.0&rp=/KCNotes/default.wl>
Defendant’s request for a transfer of venue is centered around the fact
that Galveston does not have a commercial airport into which Defendant’s
employees and corporate**784* representatives may fly and out of which they
may be expediently whisked to the federal courthouse in Galveston. Rather,
Defendant contends that it will be faced with the huge “inconvenience” of
flying into Houston and driving less than forty miles to the Galveston
courthouse, an act that will “encumber” it with “unnecessary driving time
and expenses.” The Court certainly does not wish to encumber any litigant
with such an onerous burden. The Court, being somewhat familiar with the
Northeast, notes that perceptions about travel are different in that part
of the country than they are in Texas. A litigant in that part of the
country could cross several states in a few hours and might be shocked at
having to travel fifty miles to try a case, but in this vast state of
Texas, such a travel distance would not be viewed with any surprise or
consternation. FN1
<http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?service=Find&rs=LAWS2.0&cnt=DOC&ifm=NotSet&n=1&fn=_top&sv=Split&rlti=1&cxt=DC&rlt=CLID_FQRLT15483493511151&ss=CNT&scxt=WL&vr=1.0&rp=/Find/default.wl&cite=943fsupp782#B00111996252691>
Defendant should be assured that it is not embarking on a three-week-long
trip via covered wagons when it travels to Galveston. Rather, Defendant
will be pleased to discover that the highway is paved and lighted all the
way to Galveston, and thanks to the efforts of this Court’s predecessor,
Judge Roy Bean, the trip should be free of rustlers, hooligans, or vicious
varmints of unsavory kind. Moreover, the speed limit was recently increased
to seventy miles per hour on most of the road leading to Galveston, so
Defendant should be able to hurtle to justice at lightning speed. To
assuage Defendant’s worries about the inconvenience of the drive, the Court
notes that Houston’s Hobby Airport is located about equal drivetime from
downtown Houston and the Galveston courthouse. Defendant will likely find
it an easy, traffic-free ride to Galveston as compared to a congested,
construction-riddled drive to downtown Houston. The Court notes that any
inconvenience suffered in having to drive to Galveston may likely be offset
by the peacefulness of the ride and the scenic beauty of the sunny isle.

FN1.
<http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?service=Find&rs=LAWS2.0&cnt=DOC&ifm=NotSet&n=1&fn=_top&sv=Split&rlti=1&cxt=DC&rlt=CLID_FQRLT15483493511151&ss=CNT&scxt=WL&vr=1.0&rp=/Find/default.wl&cite=943fsupp782#F00111996252691>
“The sun is ‘rize, the sun is set, and we is still in Texas yet!”

[4]
<http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?service=Find&rs=LAWS2.0&cnt=DOC&ifm=NotSet&n=1&fn=_top&sv=Split&rlti=1&cxt=DC&rlt=CLID_FQRLT15483493511151&ss=CNT&scxt=WL&vr=1.0&rp=/Find/default.wl&cite=943fsupp782#F41996252691>
[image:
Headnote Citing References]
<http://web2.westlaw.com/KCNotes/default.wl?serialnum=1996252691&rs=LAWS2.0&service=Find&ifm=NotSet&n=1&fn=_top&sv=Split&rlti=1&locatestring=HD%28004%29,CL%28H,O%29,DC%28A,L,O,D,G%29,DT%28E,D,C,M%29&rlt=CLID_FQRLT15483493511151&vr=1.0&rp=/KCNotes/default.wl>
The convenience of the witnesses and the parties is generally a primary
concern of this Court when considering transfer motions. However, vague
statements about the convenience of unknown and unnamed witnesses is
insufficient to convince this Court that the convenience of the witnesses
and the parties would be best served by transferring venue. *See **Dupre,*
810 F.Supp. at 823
<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&serialnum=1993029011&rs=WLW9.01&referencepositiontype=S&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&referenceposition=823&findtype=Y&tc=-1&ordoc=1996252691&db=345&vr=2.0&rp=/find/default.wl>
(to support a transfer of venue, the moving party cannot merely allege that
certain key witnesses are not available or are inconveniently located, but
must specifically identify the key witnesses and outline the substance of
their testimony). In the Court’s view, even if all the witnesses,
documents, and evidence relevant to this case were located within walking
distance of the Houston Division courthouse, the inconvenience caused by
retaining the case in this Court would be minimal at best in this age of
convenient travel, communication, discovery, and trial testimony
preservation. The Galveston Division courthouse is only about fifty miles
from the Houston Division courthouse. “[I]t is not as if the key witnesses
will be asked to travel to the wilds of Alaska or the furthest reaches on
the Continental United States.” *Continental Airlines,* 805 F.Supp. at 1397
<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&serialnum=1992197441&rs=WLW9.01&referencepositiontype=S&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&referenceposition=1397&findtype=Y&tc=-1&ordoc=1996252691&db=345&vr=2.0&rp=/find/default.wl>
.
As to Defendant’s argument that Houston might also be a more convenient
forum for Plaintiff, the Court notes that Plaintiff picked Galveston as her
forum of choice even though she resides in San Antonio. Defendant argues
that flight travel is available between Houston and San Antonio but is not
available between Galveston and San Antonio, again because of the absence
of a commercial airport. Alas, this Court’s kingdom for a commercial
airport! FN2
<http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?service=Find&rs=LAWS2.0&cnt=DOC&ifm=NotSet&n=1&fn=_top&sv=Split&rlti=1&cxt=DC&rlt=CLID_FQRLT15483493511151&ss=CNT&scxt=WL&vr=1.0&rp=/Find/default.wl&cite=943fsupp782#B00221996252691>
The Court is unpersuaded by this argument because it is not this Court’s
concern how Plaintiff gets here, whether it be by plane, train, automobile,
horseback, foot, or on the back of a huge Texas jackrabbit, as long as
Plaintiff is here at the proper date and time. Thus, the Court declines to
disturb the forum chosen by the Plaintiff and introduce the likelihood of
delay inherent in any transfer simply to **785* avoid the insignificant
inconvenience that Defendant may suffer by litigating this matter in
Galveston rather than Houston. *See **United Sonics, Inc. v. Shock,* 661
F.Supp. 681, 683 (W.D.Tex.1986)
<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&serialnum=1987076548&rs=WLW9.01&referencepositiontype=S&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&referenceposition=683&findtype=Y&tc=-1&ordoc=1996252691&db=345&vr=2.0&rp=/find/default.wl>
(plaintiff’s choice of forum is “most influential and should rarely be
disturbed unless the balance is strongly in defendant’s favor”); *Dupre,*
810 F.Supp. at 828
<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&serialnum=1993029011&rs=WLW9.01&referencepositiontype=S&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&referenceposition=828&findtype=Y&tc=-1&ordoc=1996252691&db=345&vr=2.0&rp=/find/default.wl>
(a prompt trial “is not without relevance to the convenience of parties and
witnesses and the interest of justice”).

FN2.
<http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?service=Find&rs=LAWS2.0&cnt=DOC&ifm=NotSet&n=1&fn=_top&sv=Split&rlti=1&cxt=DC&rlt=CLID_FQRLT15483493511151&ss=CNT&scxt=WL&vr=1.0&rp=/Find/default.wl&cite=943fsupp782#F00221996252691>
Defendant will again be pleased to know that regular limousine service is
available from Hobby Airport, even to the steps of this humble courthouse,
which has got lights, indoor plummin’, ‘lectric doors, and all sorts of new
stuff, almost like them big courthouses back East.

For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s Motion to Transfer is hereby
*DENIED.* The parties are *ORDERED* to bear their own taxable costs and
expenses incurred herein to date. The parties are also *ORDERED* to file
nothing further on this issue in this Court, including motions to
reconsider and the like. Instead, the parties are instructed to seek any
further relief to which they feel themselves entitled in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, as may be appropriate in due course.
*IT IS SO ORDERED.*

S.D.Tex.,1996.
Smith v. Colonial Penn Ins. Co.
943 F.Supp. 782