Theise et al v. Bell, No. 3:2009cv00344 - Document 9 (N.D.N.Y 2009)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER granting Deft's 6 Motion to transfer Venue to the Middle District of PA. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 5/27/09. (sfp, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------LINDA L. THEISE and THOMAS THEISE, Plaintiffs, v. 3:09-CV-344 DAVID BELL, Defendant. -------------------------------THOMAS J. McAVOY Senior United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Plaintiffs are residents of the State of New York. Defendant resides in the State of Pennsylvania. On September 23, 2006, Plaintiff Linda Theise was operating her automobile. She was stopped at a traffic signal on an exit ramp from Interstate 81 to SR 6. Defendant Bell, who was operating a tractor trailer, struck the rear of Plaintiff s vehicle. Invoking the Court s diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, Plaintiffs commenced the instant action seeking to recover for injuries sustained as a result of the September 23, 2006 incident. Presently before the Court is Defendant s motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) to transfer venue to the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1391(a), a civil action based solely on diversity jurisdiction may only be brought in: (1) a judicial district where the defendant resides; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; or (3) if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought, in any district where the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that Route 81 intersects with SR 6 in Pennsylvania.1 Inasmuch as: (1) Defendant resides in Pennsylvania; and (2) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the instant negligence claim occurred in Pennsylvania (that is where the accident occurred) and not in New York, venue is proper in the Middle District of Pennsylvania and not in the Northern District of New York. Venue is not proper under § 1391(a)(3) because: (I) there is another judicial district in which the action could have been brought; see Daniel v. Am. Bd. of Emergency Medicine, 428 F.3d 408, 43435 (2d Cir. 2005); and (II) Plaintiff has not made a prima facie showing that this Court could exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant s motion to transfer to the Middle District of Pennsylvania is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated:May 27, 2009 1 This is confirm ed by the affidavit of Attorney M iller and the copy of police report subm itted in connection w ith the instant m otion. -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
