Bonerb v. Richard J. Caron Found. - 93-CV-785H, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20432 (W.D.N.Y. July 28, 1995)

Rule:

A district court has broad discretion on a transfer motion according to an individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness. The inquiry on a motion to transfer is two-fold: First, whether the action sought to be transferred is one that "may have been brought" in the district court which the movant seeks to have the case litigated, in the "transferee" court. If so, second, whether, considering the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice, a transfer to the proposed district is appropriate.

Facts:

Plaintiff injured party, a resident of Western New York, brought a diversity action seeking damages for personal injuries sustained when he slipped and fell while playing basketball on the defendant rehabilitation facility's recreational basketball court. The defendant rehabilitation facility was located in Westfield, Pennsylvania. The plaintiff alleged negligent maintenance of the court and counseling malpractice. The defendant filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1404(a) to transfer the case to the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Defendant argued that the accident occurred in Pennsylvania, most of the witnesses with personal knowledge of the facts resided there, and Pennsylvania law would govern the substantive issues of the case.

Issue:

Under the circumstances, should the case be transferred to the Middle District of Pennsylvania? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court granted the defendant facility’s motion, finding that the action could have been brought in the transferee court in the first instance. Furthermore, all of the operative events at issue took place in Pennsylvania, and the documentary and other tangible proof to be offered in defense of the negligence and malpractice claims was located or accessible there. Moreover, the court found that the facility and most of the witnesses were residents of Pennsylvania. According to the court, the facility had no significant contracts with the transferor court, and more importantly, Pennsylvania law governed the substantive issues regardless of venue. The court concluded that a balance of all the factors favored transfer.