Smith v. Colonial Penn Ins. Co.
943 F. Supp. 782 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant seeking to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) bears the burden of demonstrating significant inconvenience, and vague assertions about travel difficulties or witness location are insufficient to disturb the plaintiff's choice of forum, which is entitled to great deference.
Facts:
- Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an insurance contract.
- A dispute arose from the contract, leading to a breach of contract claim by the Plaintiff.
- The Plaintiff, a resident of San Antonio, chose to file the lawsuit in the Galveston Division of the Southern District of Texas.
- The Galveston Division does not have a commercial airport.
- To attend proceedings in Galveston, the Defendant's employees and corporate representatives would need to fly into Houston's Hobby Airport.
- The distance between Houston's Hobby Airport and the Galveston courthouse is approximately 40-50 miles by paved highway.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a breach of contract action against Defendant in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division.
- Defendant filed a Motion to Transfer Venue to the Houston Division of the same court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the inconvenience of traveling approximately 50 miles from a commercial airport to a courthouse, without specific evidence of witness hardship, justify a transfer of venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)?
Opinions:
Majority - Kent, District Judge
No. The inconvenience of traveling approximately 50 miles is insufficient to justify a transfer of venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that a transfer is warranted, and the plaintiff's choice of forum is given great deference. Here, the Defendant's primary complaint is the 'huge inconvenience' of a 40-50 mile drive from the nearest airport, which the court considers a minimal burden, especially in a large state like Texas. Furthermore, the Defendant made only vague statements about the convenience of unnamed witnesses, failing to specifically identify key witnesses and the substance of their testimony as required to justify a transfer. In the modern era of convenient travel and communication, a 50-mile distance does not constitute a serious hardship that would outweigh the plaintiff's choice of forum and the interest in avoiding the delay inherent in a transfer.
Analysis:
This order serves as a strong affirmation of the deference given to a plaintiff's choice of forum in a § 1404(a) venue transfer analysis. It clarifies that a defendant cannot meet its burden by merely alleging minor logistical inconveniences, such as a relatively short drive from an airport. The opinion underscores the requirement for specific, concrete evidence of hardship, particularly concerning the availability and convenience of key witnesses. While the judge's colorful and humorous tone is distinctive, the underlying legal reasoning provides a clear and memorable example for students on how courts weigh the transfer factors and the high bar a moving party must clear.
