National Property Investors VIII v. Shell Oil Co.

• Decision Date: 27 November 1995
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 95-117(WGB).
• Citation: 917 F. Supp. 324
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
• Parties: NATIONAL PROPERTY INVESTORS VIII, Plaintiff, v. SHELL OIL COMPANY, Hoechst-Celenase Corporation, E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, et al., Defendants.

917 F. Supp. 324

NATIONAL PROPERTY INVESTORS VIII, Plaintiff, v. SHELL OIL COMPANY, Hoechst-Celenase Corporation, E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, et al., Defendants.

Civ. No. 95-117(WGB).

United States District Court, D. New Jersey.

November 27, 1995.

Bruce H. Nagel, Nagel, Rice & Dreifuss, Livingston, NJ, for Plaintiff National Properties Investors VIII.

James G. Gardner, Carpenter, Bennett & Morrissey, Newark, NJ, James A. Murphy, John D. Johnson, and McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe, L.L.P., Richmond, VA, for Defendant E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company.

David Katzenstein, Goldfein & Joseph, Princeton, NJ and David W. Feeney, II, Kasowitz, Hoff, Benson, Torres & Friedman, New York City, for Defendant Hoechst-Celenase Corporation.

Robert J. Kelly, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, Newark, NJ, for Defendant Shell Oil Company.

Kevin Gardner, Connell, Foley & Geiser, Roseland, NJ, for Defendant Vanguard Plastics, Inc.

OPINION

BASSLER, District Judge:

Defendant E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company ("Du Pont") moves pursuant to 28 United States Code Section 1404(a) to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. This Court's jurisdiction is pursuant to 28 United States Code Section 1332(a). For the reasons set forth below, Du Pont's motion is granted and this case is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

I. BACKGROUND

This lawsuit relates to failures from an allegedly defective polybutylene plumbing system installed in the Huntington Apartments, a 212-unit apartment complex owned by the Plaintiff, National Property Investors VIII ("NPI"). (Complaint at ¶ 3). NPI is a California limited partnership. (Id.). The Huntington Apartments complex is located in Morrisville, North Carolina, within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. (Affidavit of David M. Freedman at ¶ 2).

The Complaint alleges defects in the Huntington Apartments' plumbing system, which was manufactured from resins supplied by Shell Oil Company ("Shell"), Hoechst-Celenase Chemical Corporation ("H-C") and Du Pont. (Compl. at ¶¶ 13-14). Defendant Vanguard Plastics, Inc. ("Vanguard") allegedly manufactured and/or extruded and sold the polybutylene pipes installed in the Huntington Apartments. (Compl. at ¶ 15).

Du Pont is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Delaware. (Compl. at ¶ 6). H-C is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey. (Compl. at ¶ 5). Shell is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Texas. (Compl. at ¶ 4). Vanguard is Pennsylvania corporation. (Compl. at ¶ 7).

NPI seeks to hold Defendants liable for breach of warranty, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, unfair business practices, negligent design and strict products liability. (Compl. at Counts One-Eight).

II. DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Transfer Venue

28 United States Code Section 1404(a) provides:

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.

The purpose of Section 1404(a) is "to prevent the waste of `time, energy and money' and to `protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense....'" Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616, 84 S.Ct. 805, 809, 11 L.Ed.2d 945 (1964) (quoting Continental Grain Co. v. Barge FBL-585, 364 U.S. 19, 26-27, 80 S.Ct. 1470, 1474-75, 4 L.Ed.2d 1540 (1960)); Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Honeywell, Inc., 817 F.Supp. 473, 479 (D.N.J.1993).

Since the parties do not contend that the action could not "have been brought" in the Eastern District of North Carolina, the Court does not address that issue in this Opinion.

1. Standard of Review

The decision whether to transfer an action pursuant to Section 1404(a) rests in the Court's discretion and is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Lony v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 886 F.2d 628, 631-32 (3d Cir.1989) (decision to grant or deny forum non conveniens motion is within sound discretion of trial court). The party seeking transfer of venue bears the burden of establishing that transfer is warranted and must submit "adequate data of record" to facilitate the court's analysis. Ricoh Co. v. Honeywell, Inc., 817 F.Supp. 473, 480 (D.N.J. 1993). Before transferring venue, the district court must articulate specific reasons for its decision. Lacey v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 862 F.2d 38 (3d Cir.1988); Ricoh, 817 F.Supp. at 480.

2. Factors Guiding Court's Discretion

The Court's analysis under Section 1404(a) is flexible and turns on the particular facts of the case. Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29-30, 108 S.Ct. 2239, 2243-44, 101 L.Ed.2d 22 (1988). In Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947), the Supreme Court listed several factors that guide the Court's decision-making in this area. These factors fall into two categories: (1) the private interests of the litigants; and (2) the public interest in the fair and efficient administration of justice. Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 508-509, 67 S.Ct. at 843.

The private interest factors are: (1) plaintiff's choice of forum; (2) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (3) the availability and cost of compulsory process for unwilling witnesses; (4) obstacles to a fair trial; (5) the possibility of viewing the premises, if viewing the premises would be appropriate to the action; and (6) all other factors relating to the expeditious and efficient adjudication of the dispute. Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 508-09, 67 S.Ct. at 843.

The public interest factors are: (1) the relative backlog and other administrative difficulties in the two jurisdictions; (2) the fairness of placing the burdens of jury duty on the citizens of the state with the greater interest in the dispute; (3) the local interest in adjudicating localized disputes; and (4) the appropriateness of having the jurisdiction whose law will govern adjudicate the dispute in order to avoid difficult problems in conflicts of laws. Id.

The Supreme Court articulated these factors with respect to a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens. Nevertheless, courts routinely look to the Gulf Oil factors in deciding a motion to transfer venue under 1404(a). E.g., Ricoh, 817 F.Supp. at 479-88. Because transfer of venue is less drastic than dismissal, however, district courts have broader discretion to transfer venue than to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds. Norwood v. Kirkpatrick, 349 U.S. 29, 32, 75 S.Ct. 544, 546, 99 L.Ed. 789 (1955); All States Freight, Inc. v. Modarelli, 196 F.2d 1010, 1011 (3d Cir.1952); Ricoh, 817 F.Supp. at 479.

3. Weight Accorded Plaintiff's Choice of Forum

As a general matter, plaintiff's choice of forum is given great weight in the Section 1404(a) analysis. E.g., Lony v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 886 F.2d 628, 633 (3d Cir.1989). In a motion to transfer venue, however, Plaintiff's choice of forum is not accorded the decisive weight it enjoys under forum non conveniens. See, e.g., Gundle Lining Constr. Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 844 F.Supp. 1163 (S.D.Tex.1994); cf. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 253, 102 S.Ct. 252, 264, 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981) (district courts given more discretion to transfer under Section 1404(a) that to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens).

Moreover, when the central facts of a lawsuit occur outside of the chosen forum, plaintiff's choice of forum is accorded less weight. Ricoh, 817 F.Supp. at 481; Edwards v. Texaco, Inc., 702 F.Supp. 101, 103 (E.D.Pa.1988); Johnston v. Foster-Wheeler Constructors, Inc., 158 F.R.D. 496, 505 (M.D.Ala.1994); S.C. Johnson & Son v. Gillette Co., 571 F.Supp. 1185, 1188 (N.D.Ill.1983) ("as a general rule, the preferred forum is that which is the center of gravity of the accused activity").

Furthermore, a plaintiff's choice of a foreign forum is generally accorded less weight that the choice of a home forum. See Piper, 454 U.S. at 255-56, 102 S.Ct. at 265-66; Ricoh, 817 F.Supp. at 480; Lony, 886 F.2d at 633-34; Vivadent (USA), Inc. v. Darby Dental Supply Company, 655 F.Supp. 1359, 1360 (D.N.J.1987). Since the rule deferentially viewing plaintiff's choice of forum is premised on the assumption that a home forum is inherently more convenient than a transferee forum, a foreign plaintiff can regain equal footing with a home plaintiff by making a "strong showing" of convenience attaching to the original forum selection. Lony, 886 F.2d at 634.

B. Private Factors

1. Plaintiff's Choice of Forum

The Court does not accord great weight to Plaintiff's choice of New Jersey as the forum in which to bring this action, because New Jersey has a tangential relationship to the facts underlying Plaintiff's claims. The operative facts of this action occurred for the most part in North Carolina: the suit concerns a polybutylene system in an apartment in North Carolina; the allegedly defective products failed to perform adequately in North Carolina; the allegedly defective products were sold and installed in North Carolina by North Carolina residents and companies. Moreover, Plaintiff is a California limited partnership that owns a North Carolina apartment building.

Two connections with New Jersey, Plaintiff argues, entitle its choice of forum to deference: (1) H-C maintains its principal place of business in New Jersey; and (2) identical polybutylene pipes and fittings to the ones at issue in this lawsuit have been distributed throughout New Jersey and the United States, not just North Carolina.

That the Defendants may sell their products in states other than North Carolina, including New Jersey, is not a central fact to this lawsuit, Ricoh, 817 F.Supp. at 481; Edwards v. Texaco, Inc., 702 F.Supp. 101, 103 (E.D.Pa.1988); Johnston v. Foster-Wheeler...