Gardipee v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc.
| Decision Date | 24 May 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV.A.1:98-CV-1936.,CIV.A.1:98-CV-1936. |
| Parties | Stephen E. GARDIPEE, Plaintiff, v. PETROLEUM HELICOPTERS, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas |
Michael E. Jackson, Melvin S. Schwarzwald, Cleveland, OH, James L. Hicks, Dallas, for plaintiff.
Homer L. Deakins, Atlanta, GA, G. Mark Jodon, Houston, Peter H. Keifer, Washington, DC, for defendant.
Before the Court is Defendant Petroleum Helicopter, Inc.'s Motion to Transfer Venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Defendant moves that this action be transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, LaFayette/Opelousas Division. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds the Motion should be DENIED.
This is an action brought under the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151 et. seq. ("RLA"). The gravaman of Plaintiff Stephen Gardipee's claim is that he was wrongfully discharged by Defendant Petroleum Helicopters, Inc. ("PHI") from his position as a commercial helicopter pilot. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges he was discharged by Defendant for his active participation in an organizing campaign among various classes of Defendant's helicopter pilots, in violation of Section 2 Third and Section 2 Fourth of the RLA. This organizing campaign was conducted for the purpose of electing the Office of Professional Employees International Union, AFL-CIO. CLE ("OPEIU") as the union representative of said pilots.
On January 15, 1999, Defendant moved this Court to transfer the case to the Western District of Louisiana, LaFayette/Opelousas Division. Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue is based on the following allegations: (1) the sole connection this lawsuit has with the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division, is that PHI maintains a base at Sabine Pass, Texas, a location within said district and division; (2) Plaintiff does not reside in the Eastern District of Texas; (3) none of Plaintiff's counsel maintain an office within the Eastern District; and lastly (4) the main issues raised by Plaintiff also occurred outside of the Eastern District of Texas, with key witnesses, records, and other evidence located primarily in the Western District of Louisiana, LaFayette/Opelousas Division, which is also the primary location of the wrongs alleged in the complaint. SEE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE P.2.
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." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Whether to transfer a case pursuant to § 1404(a) is a matter uniquely within the trial court's sound discretion. Jarvis Christian College v. Exxon Corp., 845 F.2d 523, 528 (5th Cir.1988).
It is well settled that the movant bears the burden of demonstrating that a transfer of venue is warranted. Gundle Lining Construction Corp. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 844 F.Supp. 1163, 1165 (S.D.Tex.1994). To prevail, the movant must demonstrate that the balance of convenience and justice substantially weighs in favor of the transfer.1 Id. Therefore, when assessing the merits of a § 1404(a) motion, a court must determine if a transfer would make it substantially more convenient for the parties to litigate the case. Id.
The Fifth Circuit has directed that, in passing on a motion to transfer venue, the trial court must consider "all relevant factors to determine whether or not on balance the litigation would more conveniently proceed and the interests of justice be better served by transfer to a different forum." Peteet v. Dow Chemical Co., 868 F.2d 1428, 1436 (5th Cir.1989), quoting, 15 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3847, at 370 (2d ed.1986). The "relevant factors" to be taken into consideration in making this assessment include: (1) the availability and convenience of witnesses and parties; (2) the location of sources of proof; (3) the place of the alleged wrong; (4) the community's nexus to the alleged wrong; (5) the cost of obtaining the attendance of witnesses; (6) the possibility of delay or prejudice if transfer is granted; (7) the plaintiff's choice of forum; and (8) the location of counsel. Welch v. TRW, Inc., 1998 WL 574891, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13796, *3-4 (N.D.Tex. August 26, 1998); Dupre, at 825.
The Court, having assured itself that venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division, examines in turn each of these factors in the context of the present case.2
Typically, the convenience of the witnesses and parties is the most important factor in determining whether a case should be transferred pursuant to § 1404(a). See Dupre, 810 F.Supp. at 825.
As a threshold matter, the Court must primarily consider the convenience of the key witnesses, as "the convenience of one key witness may outweigh the convenience of numerous less important witnesses." See Continental Airlines v. American Airlines, 805 F.Supp. 1392, 1396 (S.D.Tex.1992). Accordingly, the party seeking the transfer must specifically identify the key witnesses and outline the substance of their testimony.3 Dupre, 810 F.Supp. at 825; Continental Airlines, F.Supp. at 1396.
Where, as here, the key witnesses of the party seeking transfer are employees of that party, their convenience is entitled to less weight because that party will be able to compel their testimony at trial. Continental Airlines, 805 F.Supp. at 1397. The court in Continental Airlines held, "[t]his is especially true where, ... the key witnesses are the employees of a party that is a transportation company and is therefore easily able to bring those witnesses to the forum." Id.; See also 15 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3851, at 423 & n. 8.
The final consideration in analyzing the availability and convenience of the witnesses is whether the proposed transfer will merely operate to shift the inconvenience from the moving party to the nonmoving party. See Dupre, 810 F.Supp. at 826; 15 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3848, at 385-86.
In the instant action, the Court observes all but four of the potential fact witnesses identified in Defendant's Rule CV-26 Initial Disclosure are employees of Defendant. SEE PLAINTIFF'S SUR-REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE, EXHIBIT "A." The four non-employee witnesses disclosed are testing administrators for Check Airmen, a company apparently retained by Defendants to administer FAA mandated pilot proficiency tests. ID.
As PHI is one of the world's largest commercial helicopter transport companies, the Court surmises Defendant will have little difficulty obtaining the attendance of these non-employee witnesses at a trial of this cause in Beaumont. SEE PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER P.1. The Court further finds, as a transportation company, Defendant can arrange for the conveyance of all its witnesses, employee and non-employee alike, to Beaumont with limited inconvenience or expense.
By contrast, the three potential fact witnesses identified in Plaintiff's Rule CV-26 Initial Disclosure, excluding Plaintiff Stephen Gardipee and wife Cheryl, are current or former co-workers of Plaintiff.4 Unlike Defendant, the Court finds Plaintiff can neither compel the attendance of these non-party witnesses, nor provide transportation for said witnesses without substantial difficulty or expense if trial of this case is transferred to the Western District of Louisiana.
In sum, the Court finds a transfer to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, based on the convenience of witnesses, unwarranted. With respect to the convenience of witnesses, Defendant has failed to demonstrate that a transfer would make it substantially more convenient for the parties to litigate the case.5 Moreover, the Court finds a transfer of the present action would merely operate to shift the inconvenience of obtaining attendance of witnesses from Defendant, the movant, to Plaintiff.
Defendant argues Plaintiff, a resident of Belton, Texas, located in the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, will at most be "minimally inconvenienced" by a transfer of the case to the Western District of Louisiana. SEE DEF.'S MOTION TO TRANSFER P.7. As Plaintiff will, "in any event be required to travel a substantial distance from his residence to pursue his claims in the forum he himself selected," Defendant contends the additional distance Plaintiff would be required to travel in order attend trial in Lafayette, "is minimal." ID. For this reason, together with the relative convenience to be obtained by PHI via transfer, Defendant avers "this factor greatly weighs in favor of a transfer to the Western District of Louisiana." ID. at 8.
The Court does not agree. At the outset, the residence of the parties, "is not a controlling factor if the convenience of witnesses and the interests of justice point strongly in a contrary direction." 15 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3849, at 398. It is not enough for a defendant to argue only that plaintiff's choice of forum is inconvenient for the plaintiff.6 Id. at 408. Finally, in weighing the convenience of the parties, the Court may take into account the relative financial strength of the litigants. Sorrels Steel Co., Inc., v. Great Southwest Corp., 651 F.Supp. 623, 631 (S.D.Miss.1986).
As previously noted, Defendant PHI, one of the world's largest commercial helicopter transport companies, maintains a base of operations in Sabine Pass,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Empty Barge Lines II v. Dredge Leonard Fisher
...if a transfer would make it substantially more convenient for the parties to litigate the case." Gardipee v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., 49 F.Supp.2d 925, 928 (E.D.Tex.1999) (citing Gundle Lining Constr. Corp. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 844 F.Supp. 1163, 1165 (S.D.Tex.1994)). The decision......
-
Ray Mart, Inc. v. Stock Building Supply of Texas
...if a transfer would make it substantially more convenient for the parties to litigate the case.'" Gardipee v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., 49 F.Supp.2d 925, 928 (E.D.Tex.1999) (quoting Gundle Lining Constr. Corp. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 844 F.Supp. 1163, 1165 (S.D.Tex.1994)). The decisi......
-
Gonsalez Moreno v. Milk Train, Inc.
...little weight, unless the documents "are so voluminous that their transport is a major undertaking." Gardipee v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., 49 F.Supp.2d 925, 931 (E.D.Tex.1999) (quoting Met-L-Wood Corp. v. SWS Indus., Inc., 594 F.Supp. 706, 710 (N.D.Ill. 1984)). Here, Milk Train has not i......
-
Thurmond v. Compaq Computer Corporation, 1:99-CV-0711 (TH), JURY (E.D. Tex. 3/1/2000)
...First, "general allegations that transfer is needed because of books and records is not enough." Gardipee v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., 49 F.Supp.2d 925, 928 (E.D.Tex.1999). Notwithstanding the fact that Compaq should have already disclosed these documents in compliance with the Local Rul......