Lamb v. Highlines Const. Co., Inc.
541 So. 2d 269, 1989 La. App. LEXIS 406, 1989 WL 23218 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff's choice of a proper forum should not be disturbed under the doctrine of forum non conveniens unless the defendant makes a clear and convincing showing, supported by specific facts, that a transfer is required for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.
Facts:
- Daniel Lamb was injured in an accident that occurred in Harahan, Louisiana.
- Louisiana Power & Light Co. (L.P. & L.), one of the defendants, has its registered office in Orleans Parish.
- Highlines Construction Co., another defendant, has its registered office in the adjacent Jefferson Parish.
- Gene Esquerre, the third defendant, is a resident of Jefferson Parish.
- The accident site in Harahan is approximately 10 miles from the Orleans Parish Courthouse.
- The same accident site is approximately 15.2 miles from the Jefferson Parish Courthouse in Gretna.
- Orleans Parish and Jefferson Parish are contiguous judicial districts, connected by interstate highways within the metropolitan New Orleans area.
Procedural Posture:
- Daniel Lamb filed a personal injury suit against L.P. & L., Highlines Construction Co., and Gene Esquerre in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans.
- Defendant Highlines Construction Co. filed a motion to transfer the suit to the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson, based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
- The trial court judge granted Highlines' motion to transfer the case.
- Lamb sought a writ of certiorari from the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, to review the trial court's transfer order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a trial court's transfer of venue for forum non conveniens proper when the moving party offers only a conclusory statement that a transfer would be more convenient, without providing any specific facts to overcome the great weight given to the plaintiff's choice of a proper forum?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Plotkin
No. A trial court's transfer of venue is improper when the moving party fails to make a specific factual showing to support the transfer. The plaintiff's choice of a proper forum is entitled to great weight and cannot be overcome by a defendant's unsupported, conclusory assertion that a transfer would better serve convenience and the interests of justice. The party moving for a transfer bears the burden of making a clear and convincing showing that the balance of factors weighs heavily in favor of the alternative forum. Here, Highlines provided no specific facts, only the general statement that a transfer would serve convenience. Given the close proximity of the two contiguous courthouses, it would be impossible for the defendant to prove any substantial difference in convenience for parties, witnesses, or access to evidence. Therefore, Highlines failed to meet its burden, and the trial court abused its discretion by granting the transfer.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a clear, multi-factor test for applying the forum non conveniens doctrine in Louisiana, effectively importing the federal standard from Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert. It significantly strengthens the plaintiff's traditional right to choose the forum by placing a high evidentiary burden on the defendant seeking a transfer. The ruling prevents defendants from easily moving cases to a preferred venue based on vague claims of convenience, thereby curbing strategic forum shopping and ensuring the plaintiff's choice is respected unless compelling, fact-based reasons exist to disturb it.
