Buckeye Pennsauken Terminal LLC v. Dominique Trading Corp.

• Citation: 150 F.Supp.3d 501
• Decision Date: 21 December 2015
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 14–4625
• Parties: Buckeye Pennsauken Terminal LLC, Plaintiff, v. Dominique Trading Corp., et al., Defendants.
• Court: United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)

150 F.Supp.3d 501

Buckeye Pennsauken Terminal LLC, Plaintiff,

v.Dominique Trading Corp., et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 14–4625

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Signed December 21, 2015

James J. Quinlan, Jeffrey Steven Moller, Blank Rome, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.

Richard Q. Whelan, Charles P. Neely, Frank P. Degiulio, Palmer Biezup & Henderson LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO

, District Judge.

This case is brought pursuant to the Court's admiralty and maritime jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333

. Plaintiff Buckeye Pennsauken Terminal LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Buckeye”) alleges that Defendant M/V Voidomatis (the “Vessel”), an oceangoing oil barge owned by Defendant Dominique Trading Corporation (“Dominique”) and managed by Defendant Pleiades Shipping Agents S.A. (“Pleiades”), allided with Plaintiff's Dock 2, located on the Delaware River in Pennsauken, New Jersey, on August 5, 2014. See generally Compl., ECF No. 1. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' negligence and/or the Vessel's unseaworthiness caused damage to Plaintiff's Dock 2 of up to $19 million. Id. at 7.

Defendants now seek transfer of this action to the be consolidated with two cases pending in that district. The New Jersey actions concern an “unrelated incident” that occurred on October 5, 2014, when another dock owned by Plaintiff, Dock 1, was struck and damaged by a barge being towed by a tugboat. Defs.' Mot. Transfer Venue 4, ECF No. 52. The tugboat owners and barge owners each filed separate lawsuits against Buckeye on the day of the incident under the Shipowner's Limitation of Liability Act, 46 U.S.C. §§ 30501

–30512, in the District of New Jersey, Camden Vicinage: In re

Dann Towing Co. & Dann Ocean Towing, Inc. , No. 15–1610, and In re

BB & T Equipment Finance Corp. & Vane Line Bunkering, Inc., No. 15–2313. These matters have been consolidated under No. 15–1610.

Defendants claim that Plaintiff indicated in its discovery responses in the instant action that its claims for “loss of use/business interruption damages” and “costs incurred to mitigate economic losses” are “inextricably related to identical claims” made by Plaintiff in the New Jersey actions, Defs.' Mot. Transfer Venue 3, and concern “[t]he same $8 million” in all three cases, Defs.' Reply Br. 6, ECF No. 59. Therefore, according to Defendants, granting transfer would allow the District of New Jersey to consolidate this action with the others and “avoid[ ] concurrent identical litigation in two jurisdictions.” Id. at 7. For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny Defendants' motion to transfer.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Immediately after the allision with Plaintiff's Dock 2 on August 5, 2014, the Vessel proceeded along the Delaware River to Marcus Hook Anchorage, where it anchored to await instruction concerning the delivery of its cargo and to assess damage to the Vessel. Defs.' Mot. Transfer Venue 2. The next day, on August 6, 2014, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Complaint in Admiralty in this Court. ECF No. 1. The Complaint claims in rem jurisdiction over the Vessel and in personam jurisdiction over the owner, Defendant Dominique, and manager, Defendant Pleiades. Id. at 2. Plaintiff brings the following claims against Defendants:

Count 1: Negligence, in twenty-three enumerated respects—each of which proximately caused the allision and Plaintiff's damages—for dock repairs, loss of use, loss of profits, extraordinary operating costs, costs of surveyors, engineers, insurance, and recertification, as well as prejudgment and postjudgment interest and attorneys' fees.

Count 2: The Vessel's unseaworthiness, in twenty-three enumerated respects, of which Defendant had knowledge, which caused the allision and Plaintiff's damages, for dock repairs, loss of use, loss of profits, extraordinary operating costs, costs of surveyors, engineers, insurance, and recertification, as well as prejudgment and postjudgment interest and attorneys' fees.

Id. at 4–7.

To avoid arrest of the Vessel by the U.S. Marshal while anchored in Marcus Hook Anchorage, see Defs.' Mot. Transfer Venue 2, the Vessel's insurance carrier issued security in the form of a letter of undertaking to Plaintiff, id. Ex. 2, Attach. A, ECF No. 53.

On August 14, 2014, Defendant Dominique filed a Statement of Right or Interests pursuant to Supplemental Rule for Admiralty Claims C(6), affirming its ownership of the Vessel. ECF No. 15. Also on August 14, 2014, the Court ordered, per the parties' agreement, depositions of certain crewmembers of the Vessel. ECF No. 16. On September 19, 2014, Defendants filed their joint Answer, denying the allegations and asserting a number of affirmative defenses. ECF No. 21.

On October 21, 2014, Defendants filed third-party complaints against the compulsory river pilot, Kelly Sparks, and Moran Towing Corporation, the towing company that provided the tugboats on the day of the incident at issue. ECF Nos. 25, 26. These third-party complaints were later voluntarily dismissed by Defendants on January 20, 2015. ECF Nos. 29, 30.

On February 25, 2015, the Court approved the stipulated dismissal of Defendant Pleiades, ECF No. 33, and also approved a stipulation and consent order accepting that the remaining Defendants—Dominique and the Vessel—are at fault and liable to Plaintiff “for all provable and legally recoverable damages,” ECF No. 34. Accordingly, the only issue remaining in the case is the proper amount of damages.

On March 19, 2015, several insurance underwriters who insured Plaintiff for business interruption and loss of business income (collectively, “Underwriters”) filed a motion seeking permissive intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)

. ECF No. 36. The court held a hearing on the motion to intervene on June 16, 2015. By order of the same date, the Court denied the motion to intervene without prejudice, staying the case until September 14, 2015, so that Underwriters could attempt to resolve Plaintiff's insurance claim. ECF No. 46. The Court stated in its order that after the stay lifted, Underwriters may file an amended motion to intervene, attaching the operative insurance policy and stating with specificity the resolution of the claim that Plaintiff has filed with Underwriters. Id.

On September 11, 2015, Underwriters filed a renewed motion to intervene. ECF No. 49. That motion was unopposed. Accordingly, the Court granted the motion on October 29, 2015. ECF No. 55.

Discovery in this case is ongoing, and the deadline for fact discovery is February 1, 2016. See Fourth Scheduling Order, ECF No. 54.

On October 28, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for transfer of venue to the District of New Jersey, Camden Vicinage, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)

. ECF No. 53. Plaintiff filed its opposition to this motion on November 12, 2015. ECF No. 58. Thereafter, Defendants moved for leave to file a reply brief on November 16, 2015.¹ ECF No. 59. Accordingly, Defendants' motion for transfer of venue is now ripe for disposition.

II. DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE

A. Standard of Review

The first issue that the Court must address is whether 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)

applies to admiralty and maritime cases. Courts have consistently applied § 1404(a) when considering the transfer of venue in an admiralty action even though the statutory language references “civil action[s],” a category which does not include admiralty and maritime cases. See, e.g. , Cont'l Grain Co. v. The FBL–585 , 364 U.S. 19, 25–27, 80 S.Ct. 1470, 4 L.Ed.2d 1540 (1960) (applying § 1404 in an admiralty action). In the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011, which is codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1390(b), Congress clarified that “admiralty disputes would be subject to the general transfer provisions in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404 –1407.” H.R.Rep. No. 112–10, at 33 (2011) (citing Cont'l Grain, 364 U.S. 19, 80 S.Ct. 1470 ).

Section 1404(a)

provides that “[f]or 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). 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). In ruling on a motion for transfer, “the plaintiff's choice of venue should not be lightly disturbed.” Id.

As a threshold matter, the district court must determine that the suit could have been properly filed in the transferee court. Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp., 431 F.2d 22, 24 (3d Cir.1970)

. If the case could have been brought initially in the transferee forum, the court moves on to determine whether the proposed transfer will be more convenient for the parties and witnesses and will be in the interest of justice. Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879.

Although three factors are enumerated in § 1404(a)-convenience of the parties, convenience of the witnesses, and the interest of justice—the court's analysis is not limited to those factors. Id.

Instead, the court may “consider all relevant factors to determine whether on balance the litigation would more conveniently proceed and the interests of justice be better served by transfer to a different forum.” Id. (quoting 15 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3847 (2d ed. 1986) ).

In Jumara v. State Farm Insurance Co.,

the Third Circuit identified various private and public interests that courts may consider when ruling on a § 1404(a) motion. Id. The private interests include the plaintiff's forum preference, the defendant's preference, whether the claim arose elsewhere, the convenience of the parties as indicated by their relative physical and financial condition, the convenience of the witnesses, and the location of books and records. Id. The public interests include the enforceability of the judgment; practical considerations...