Woods v. Bud's Boat Rental, LLC
Filing
20
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 13 Motion to Transfer Case to Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans Division.(Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt) Parties notified.(ltrevino, )
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
CRAIG WOODS,
Plaintiff,
VS.
BUD'S BOAT RENTAL, LLC,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. G-11-484
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
I.
INTRODUCTION
Pending before the Court is the defendant, Bud’s Boat Rental, LLC’s, motion to transfer
venue. (Doc. No. 13). The plaintiff, Craig Woods, filed his response (Doc. No. 18), and the
defendant filed a reply (Doc. No. 19). After a careful review of the facts underlying the
plaintiff’s case, a review of the motion, response, reply and applicable law, the Court determines
that the defendant’s motion to transfer venue should be granted.
II.
RELEVANT FACTS AND CONTENTIONS
-AThe plaintiff allegedly sustained an injury on or about October 24, 2010, while aboard the
M/V Capt. Jim Rhodes, a vessel operated by the defendant on the occasion. The plaintiff alleges
that he was injured while in route to work when “the M/V Capt. Jim Rhodes slammed into a boat
landing, causing [him] to be thrown about and land on his back.” As a result, the plaintiff
contends that he suffered bodily injuries. The plaintiff filed suit asserting claims under general
maritime law and, although a resident of the state of Louisiana, brought suit in the state of Texas.
He is also receiving medical care from an orthopedic surgeon who, as well, is a resident of
Texas.
Regarding the defendant’s motion for a change of venue, the plaintiff asserts that the
defendant has not challenged personal jurisdiction in the Southern District of Texas and has,
otherwise, failed to carry its burden of proving that a trial in Louisiana would be more
convenient. According to the plaintiff, several fact witnesses, the plaintiff’s employer and the
plaintiff’s treating physician, are based in Texas. Therefore, the plaintiff asserts, the motion
should be denied.
-BIn its motion to transfer, the defendant points to the occasion and location of the
plaintiff’s alleged injury. The defendant asserts, without opposition, that the alleged collision
occurred in Louisiana state waters and that Louisiana is the state where the defendant business is
located, near New Orleans, Louisiana. The plaintiff agrees that the defendant is a resident of the
state of Louisiana. Moreover, argues the defendant, “the majority if not all of the books, records
and the vessel are located in Louisiana.” Equally, the defendant argues, all of the parties and
third-parties are located in Louisiana. Finally, the defendant, in its reply, points out that: (a) the
Eastern District of Louisiana, without dispute, is an appropriate venue; (b) the plaintiff’s first
examining physician practices medicine in Houma, Louisiana; (c) except for his orthopedic
surgeon, most, if not all, of the plaintiff’s past physicians likely reside in southeastern Louisiana;
and (d) the plaintiff’s home is less than an hour from the courthouse in the Eastern District of
Louisiana.
III.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
The Court is of the opinion that the defendant’s motion to transfer should be granted. In
his response to the defendant’s motion, the plaintiff suggests that relevant fact witnesses reside in
Texas. Perhaps, even family members are residents of Texas. Yet, the plaintiff did not affirm
2
that either fact witnesses or family are Texas residents. Hence, the Court concludes that apart
from his attorney and treating physician, there are no witnesses in Texas that have facts relevant
to the plaintiff’s case. Nevertheless, the plaintiff points out that his employer, Texas Petroleum
Investment Co., is a Houston, Texas based employer. However, the plaintiff does not reveal the
relevance of this fact since his employer is not a party to this suit. And, there are no pleadings
suggesting that the plaintiff’s employer played or will play any role in this suit. Therefore, the
sole nexus of this suit to Texas is the plaintiff’s attorneys and orthopedic surgeon.
Nevertheless, it is the defendant’s burden to establish that good cause exists for the
transfer of a case based on venue. See In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., (Volkswagen II), 545 F.3d
304, 314-15 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Having resolved the question of whether the suit could
have been brought in the transferee district, the Court next examines the convenience factors.
The private interest factors require the Court to consider: (a) the relative ease of access to sources
of proof; (b) the availability of compulsory process to secure non-party witnesses; (c) the cost of
attendance for willing witnesses; and (d) the practical problems that make the trial of a case easy,
expeditious and inexpensive. Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 315.
The public interest factors
include: (a) the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; (b) the local interest in
having the controversy decided at home; (c) the familiarity of the forum with the law that will
govern the case; and (d) avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws in the application
of foreign law. Id. at 315.
A review of the private factors reveal that all factors point to the transferee district as the
most convenient. The facts show that the plaintiff’s residence is more than three hours from the
Galveston Division courthouse; the plaintiff’s and defendant’s witnesses, save the plaintiff’s
orthopedic surgeon, are beyond the reach of the Court’s compulsory process authority; hotel
3
accommodations would be required for the plaintiff and his witnesses were the case to remain in
Texas; and Galveston is currently without a resident judge who might give the plaintiff’s case the
attention it deserves. A trial in Galveston would be neither expeditious nor inexpensive for the
parties and court personnel. The public interest factors also support transfer of the case. The
Galveston Division has as many, if not more, pending cases on its docket than the average docket
in the Eastern District of Louisiana. Moreover, Louisiana has a greater interest in the resolution
of its citizens’ cases than Texas.
It is true that a plaintiff has an interest in his chosen forum. However, that interest is due
less deference where he is not a resident of his chosen forum and the operative facts in the
underlying case occurred in the transferee forum. See Robertson v. M/V Cape Hunter, 979 F.
Supp. 1105, 1109 (S.D. Tex. 1997). And, the fact that the plaintiff is being treated in Houston,
Texas, yet another forum, does not weight in factor of the chosen forum since physicians seldom
personally appear at trial. This fact is particularly distressing because it appears that part of the
plaintiff’s medical treatment for his alleged injury was received in Louisiana, near his home.
In light of the foregoing discussion and analysis, the Court determines that all factors
weigh in favor of the transferee forum. Therefore, the Court GRANTS the defendant’s motion to
transfer and directs this case be TRANSFERRED to the Eastern District of Louisiana, the New
Orleans Division.
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas this 5th day of March, 2012.
___________________________________
Kenneth M. Hoyt
United States District Judge
4
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
