Case Smith v. Colonial Penn Ins. Co.

Name

Topi Motion To Transfer Venue; D’s Motion from Galveston to Houston

c

Quick Breach of Contract Case

Notes

Issu Whether the court would transfer the case from the “Galveston Division” to the “Houston
e Division” of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Procedure

Court 1 District court denied the motion to Transfer Venue.

Facts Argument & Reasoning

• P: Picked Galveston, though resides in D’s Argument:

San Antonio.
• D: Wants to change venue to Houston
instead of Galveston for convenience.
What happened?
D moved to Transfer Venue from Galveston to
Houston Division due to the fact that Galveston
does not have a commercial airport into which
D's employees and corporate representatives
may fly in and out of.
• The court felt D’s were being whiney and
petty.
• “Defendant should be assured that it is
not embarking on a three-week-long trip
via covered wagons…the trip should be
free of rustlers, hooligans, or vicious
varmints of unsavory kind.”
• Vague concerns of unknown and
unnamed witnesses is insufficient to
convince this court that the convenience
of the witness and the parties would be
best served by transferring venue.
• Galveston does not have a commercial
airport into which D’s employees and
corp. reps may fly and be whisked to
the federal court house in Galveston
• Will be faced with a huge inconvenience
of flying into Houston and driving <40
miles to Galveston, an act which will
“encumber” it with “unnecessary
driving time and expenses.”
• Houston even easier for P’s too.
Court’s Reasoning:
• Under Section 1404(a), the D must bear
the burden of demonstrating to the
District Court that it should decide to
transfer the action.
• Flying into Houston is only a 40 mile
drive to Galveston.
• Vague statements about the
convenience of unknown and unnamed
witnesses are insufficient.

• P picked Galveston as her forum of

choice.

Rules
1. 28 U.S.C.S. § 1404(a) provides that, 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. The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating to the
district court that it should, in its sound discretion, decide to transfer the action.

2, 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.

3. Vague statements about the convenience of unknown and unnamed witnesses is insufficient
to cause the trial court to conclude that the convenience of the witnesses and the parties would
be best served by transferring venue.

Holdin Transfer Depends on a determination of the court by examining convenience, cost,

g and feasibility of transfer. The vague statements the insurance company had offered
were insufficient to convince the court that the convenience of the witnesses and
parties would be best served by transferring venue.

Notes

The court noted that a change of venue could entail delays and, in any event, concluded that it
was not appropriate to disturb the forum chosen by the plaintiff to avoid the "insignificant
inconvenience" that the insurance company might suffer.