Free Case Transferred In - District Transfer - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 4 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-2

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 1 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-2

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 2 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-2

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 3 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-2

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 4 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-2

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 5 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-2

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 6 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-2

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 7 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-2

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 8 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-3

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KENNETH REYNOLDS, et. al.

v. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY

: : : : : : :

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 2:06-CV-03013-LDD

ORDER

And now, this 12h day of July 2006, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's Request to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED. BY THE COURT: /S/LEGROME D. DAVIS Legrome D. Davis, J

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-4

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 1 of 1

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-5

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 1 of 1

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-6

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 1 of 1

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-7

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 1 of 1

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-8

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KENNETH REYNOLDS, ET AL. v. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY

: : : : :

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 2:06-cv-03013-LDD

ORDER

AND NOW, this 24th day of October 2006, upon review of the Court's records indicating that no responsive pleading has been filed by defendants in the above-captioned matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants shall file a pleading in response to the Complaint by November 7, 2006.

BY THE COURT: /S/LEGROME D. DAVIS Legrome D. Davis, J

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-9

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 1 of 7

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-9

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 2 of 7

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-9

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 3 of 7

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-9

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 4 of 7

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-9

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 5 of 7

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-9

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 6 of 7

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-9

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 7 of 7

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 1 of 37

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 2 of 37

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 3 of 37

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 4 of 37

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 5 of 37

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 6 of 37

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 7 of 37

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 8 of 37

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 9 of 37

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 10 of 37

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 11 of 37

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 12 of 37

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 13 of 37

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 14 of 37

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 15 of 37

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 16 of 37

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 17 of 37

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 18 of 37

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 19 of 37

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 20 of 37

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 21 of 37

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 22 of 37

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 23 of 37

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 24 of 37

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 25 of 37

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 26 of 37

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 27 of 37

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 28 of 37

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 29 of 37

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 30 of 37

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 31 of 37

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 32 of 37

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 33 of 37

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 34 of 37

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 35 of 37

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 36 of 37

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-10

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 37 of 37

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-11

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KENNETH REYNOLDS, ET AL. v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION

NO. 2:06-CV-3013-LDD

NOTICE

Please be advised that a Rule 16 conference in the above-captioned case is scheduled for MONDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2006 at 11:00 AM. before the Honorable Legrome D. Davis, Courtroom 6A, U.S. Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19106. Please complete the enclosed Conference Information Report and mail or fax the completed Report for arrival in Judge Davis' Chambers at least three business days prior to the Rule 16 conference. Further, counsel are expected to present a completed joint discovery plan pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (F). At the close of the conference, you will receive an order from Judge Davis listing firm dates for the completion of discovery, other pretrial submissions and the trial, if a trial is required. If trial counsel is on trial in a court of record prior to the time of the conference, the Judge and opposing counsel should be advised of this in writing at the earliest possible date and another attorney in such trial counsel's office should appear at the conference. Failure to comply with this directive may result in the imposition of sanctions. The conference will be continued to another date only in exceptional cases.
Very truly yours,

/S/CAROL SAMPSON Carol Sampson Deputy Clerk to Judge Legrome D. Davis 267-299-7651 267-299-5076 (Fax) E-Mailed 11/07/06 - CS S. Farber K. C. Douglas L. E. Bricklin M. C. Duggan

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-11

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 2 of 2

RULE 16 CONFERENCE INFORMATION REPORT Civil Action No.: 06-cv-3013 Service of Process Made (Date) Caption: Kenneth Reynolds, et al. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Trial Counsel: Representing: Law Firm: Address: Jury Trial Bench Trial Arbitration

Telephone: Are there threshold motions?

Fax:

E-Mail: (Identify Motion(s))

When will discovery be completed? (Date) Will motion for summary judgment be filed? Has settlement been discussed? If not, why not? Future settlement conference requested Novel issues or special problems? Yes Yes No No If yes, describe. Yes Yes No No

Ready for trial by? (Date) Trial time estimates: Time to present your case Time for entire trial Date: Signature of counsel Typed or printed name

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-12

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KENNETH REYNOLDS, ET AL. v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION

NO. 2:06-CV-3013-LDD

NOTICE

Please be advised that a Rule 16 conference in the above-captioned case is scheduled for MONDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2006 at 11:00 AM. before the Honorable Legrome D. Davis, Courtroom 6A, U.S. Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19106. Please complete the enclosed Conference Information Report and mail or fax the completed Report for arrival in Judge Davis' Chambers at least three business days prior to the Rule 16 conference. Further, counsel are expected to present a completed joint discovery plan pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (F). At the close of the conference, you will receive an order from Judge Davis listing firm dates for the completion of discovery, other pretrial submissions and the trial, if a trial is required. If trial counsel is on trial in a court of record prior to the time of the conference, the Judge and opposing counsel should be advised of this in writing at the earliest possible date and another attorney in such trial counsel's office should appear at the conference. Failure to comply with this directive may result in the imposition of sanctions. The conference will be continued to another date only in exceptional cases.
Very truly yours,

/S/CAROL SAMPSON Carol Sampson Deputy Clerk to Judge Legrome D. Davis 267-299-7651 267-299-5076 (Fax) E-Mailed 11/07/06 - CS S. Farber K. C. Douglas L. E. Bricklin M. C. Duggan

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-12

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 2 of 2

RULE 16 CONFERENCE INFORMATION REPORT Civil Action No.: 06-cv-3013 Service of Process Made (Date) Caption: Kenneth Reynolds, et al. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Trial Counsel: Representing: Law Firm: Address: Jury Trial Bench Trial Arbitration

Telephone: Are there threshold motions?

Fax:

E-Mail: (Identify Motion(s))

When will discovery be completed? (Date) Will motion for summary judgment be filed? Has settlement been discussed? If not, why not? Future settlement conference requested Novel issues or special problems? Yes Yes No No If yes, describe. Yes Yes No No

Ready for trial by? (Date) Trial time estimates: Time to present your case Time for entire trial Date: Signature of counsel Typed or printed name

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-13

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 1 of 20

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-13

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 2 of 20

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-13

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 3 of 20

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-13

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 4 of 20

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-13

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 5 of 20

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-13

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 6 of 20

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-13

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 7 of 20

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-13

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 8 of 20

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-13

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 9 of 20

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-13

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 10 of 20

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-13

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 11 of 20

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-13

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 12 of 20

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-13

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 13 of 20

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-13

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 14 of 20

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-13

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 15 of 20

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-13

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 16 of 20

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-13

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 17 of 20

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-13

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 18 of 20

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-13

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 19 of 20

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-13

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 20 of 20

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 1 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 2 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 3 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 4 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 5 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 6 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 7 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 8 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 9 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 10 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 11 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 12 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 13 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 14 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 15 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 16 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 17 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 18 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 19 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 20 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 21 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 22 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 23 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 24 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 25 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 26 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 27 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 28 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 29 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 30 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 31 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 32 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 33 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 34 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 35 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 36 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 37 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 38 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 39 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 40 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 41 of 41

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-15

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KENNETH REYNOLDS and JOAN CHIEN: h/w : : v. : : STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE : INSURANCE COMPANY :

No. 06-cv-03013

ORDER AND NOW, this _______ day of ____________, 2007, upon consideration of Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for a Seven Day Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' Motion for Abstention or in the Alternative to Transfer Venue, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that Plaintiffs Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs Response shall be filed no later than seven (7) days from the date of this order.

BY THE COURT:

_________________________________ The Honorable Legrome D. Davis

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-15

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 2 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KENNETH REYNOLDS and JOAN CHIEN: h/w : : v. : : STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE : INSURANCE COMPANY :

No. 06-cv-03013

PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR A SEVEN DAY EXTENSION TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR ABSTENTION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO TRANSFER VENUE Plaintiffs, Kenneth Reynolds and Joan Chien, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby move this Honorable Court for a seven day extension to respond to Defendants motion and in support thereof aver: 1. By Order of this Honorable Court, Plaintiffs were to respond to

Defendants Motions for Abstention or alternatively a Transfer of Venue by today, February 2, 2007. 2. Plaintiffs' counsel, Shelly Farber, Esquire ("Farber"), has been

incapacitated by illness for which he sought medical treatment for much of the past two to three weeks. 3. Farber had not worked a full day due to the aforementioned illnesses until

February 2, 2007. 4. Farber's one employee has also missed approximately 1 week of work

over the past 2 weeks due to illness. 5. As a result of the foregoing, Farber has been unable to complete several

required tasks including the instant response.

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-15

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 3 of 4

6.

Farber has begun work on Plaintiffs response despite the above mentioned

health issues, but is unable to complete an appropriate response because of the above mentioned illnesses. 7. Farber has contacted counsel for Defendant, Katherine Cole Douglas,

Esquire, and Ms. Douglas informs she will not object to a 7 day extension. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Honorable Court allows seven (7) additional days for it to respond to Defendants Motion for Abstention or alternatively for Transfer of Venue. Respectfully Submitted:

_/s/ Shelly Farber SHELLY FARBER ESQUIRE PA Attorney ID 33726 Farber and Farber Law Offices 2619 West Chester Pike Suite 100 Broomall, PA 19008 610-356-3900 610-356-3952

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-15

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 4 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KENNETH REYNOLDS and JOAN CHIEN: h/w : : v. : : STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE : INSURANCE COMPANY : CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I Shelly Farber, Esquire, aver that on 2/2/07 I caused a copy of the attached Motion for an Extension of time to be served via fax upon: Katherine Cole Douglas, Esquire at 215 561 6661

No. 06-cv-03013

Respectfully Submitted:

/s/ Shelly Farber SHELLY FARBER ESQUIRE PA Attorney ID 33726 Farber and Farber Law Offices 2619 West Chester Pike Suite 100 Broomall, PA 19008 610-356-3900 610-356-3952

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-16

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 1 of 1

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-17

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KENNETH REYNOLDS, ET AL. v. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY

: : : : :

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 2:06-cv-03013-LDD

ORDER

AND NOW, this 5th day of February, 2007 it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time to respond (Doc. No. 12) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall respond to Defendant's motion for abstention or, in the alternative, transfer of venue no later February 9, 2007.

BY THE COURT: /S/LEGROME D. DAVIS Legrome D. Davis, J

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-18

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 1 of 1

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-19

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KENNETH REYNOLDS and JOAN CHIEN: h/w : : v. : : STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE : INSURANCE COMPANY :

No. 06-cv-03013

ORDER AND NOW, this _______ day of ____________, 2007, upon consideration of Defendants' Motion for Abstention or in the Alternative Motion to Transfer Venue, and Plaintiffs response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that Defendants Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. This Honorable Court will exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claim for uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits. However, Plaintiffs consents to transfer of its second count/claim challenging the legality of their insurance agreement with Defendant and that claim/count will be transferred ___________________________________________________________________.

BY THE COURT:

_________________________________ J.

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-19

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 2 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KENNETH REYNOLDS and JOAN CHIEN: h/w : : v. : : STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE : INSURANCE COMPANY :

No. 06-cv-03013

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR ABSTENTION OR ALTERNATIVELY FOR TRANSFER PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1404(A) Comes now the plaintiffs, by and through counsel, and responds to Defendants motion as follows:

1.

Plaintiffs consent to the transfer of their second count contained in their Complaint which challenges the legality of their insurance policy with defendant to an appropriate forum in Delaware.

2.

Plaintiffs aver that this Honorable Court does have jurisdiction to hear their first count/claim for underinsured/uninsured motorist benefits under diversity jurisdiction principles found in 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(a) and that that jurisdiction is appropriate here under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).

3.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the attached Memorandum of Law in support of jurisdiction of their second count/claim. Respectfully Submitted: _/s/ Shelly Farber SHELLY FARBER ESQUIRE PA Attorney ID 33726 Farber and Farber Law Offices 2619 West Chester Pike Suite 100 Broomall, PA 19008 610-356-3900 610-356-3952

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-19

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 3 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KENNETH REYNOLDS and JOAN CHIEN: h/w : : v. : : STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE : INSURANCE COMPANY :

No. 06-cv-03013

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR ABSTENTION OR ALTERNATIVELY FOR TRANSFER PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1404(A)

I.

INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs' count for uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits relates to an

automobile accident on July 3, 2002 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The automobile involved in the accident with Plaintiffs was owned and driven by a Pennsylvania resident. Defendant, plaintiffs' insurer, is an Illinois company which does business in Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs are residents of Delaware. II. ARGUMENT Defendant has conceded that jurisdiction by this Honorable Court over Plaintiffs' uninsured/underinsured is appropriate under Diversity Jurisdiction principles. Defendant nonetheless avers that under forum non conveniens, codified in 28 U.S.C. 1404(a), that count should be transferred to federal court in Delaware. Defendant than argues that all of the relevant private and public factors courts consider in determining whether jurisdiction is appropriate elsewhere support a transfer. However Defendant is incorrect. First as Defendant acknowledges, Plaintiffs choice of venue is given preference over Defendants interest in a different forum. They nonetheless argue that Plaintiffs

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-19

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 4 of 6

choice must be discounted where all of the other factors point to another forum. In this case Plaintiffs accident occurred in Pennsylvania. The other car was owned and driven by a Pennsylvania resident. These facts alone clearly establish that all of the other relevant factors to consider do not point to jurisdiction elsewhere. Some of the interests which Defendant enumerates in the instant Motion include Private interests (such as: the nature of the claim and where it arose; convenience to witnesses; and the location of relevant documents) and Public interests (such as: enforceability of a judgment in either fora, practical considerations for trial, public policies of each for a, and familiarity with the trial judge of the applicable state law). See Jumara v. State Farm Insurance Co., 55 F.3d 873, 878 (3rd Cir. 1995). In this case resolution of Plaintiffs first claim will presumably involve determining whether the driver or owner of the other car were uninsured or underinsured, whether there is an accident covered by the policy, and whether there was a valid policy in effect which covers such claims. Thus, certain relevant witnesses and documents will be located within Pennsylvania. In such circumstances, private factors and public factors (i.e., practical considerations for trial) point towards Pennsylvania. Certainly this Honorable Court is capable of determining the enforceability of the insurance agreement even if it was entered into in Delaware. Therefore where more than one other factor aside from the Plaintiffs choice of forum point towards Pennsylvania, Plaintiffs choice ought to be upheld and jurisdiction ought to remain in Pennsylvania. See Defendants Memorandum of Law in Support of the instant motions, p. 6.

Respectfully Submitted:

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-19

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 5 of 6

_/s/ Shelly Farber SHELLY FARBER ESQUIRE PA Attorney ID 33726 Farber and Farber Law Offices 2619 West Chester Pike Suite 100 Broomall, PA 19008 610-356-3900 610-356-3952

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-19

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 6 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KENNETH REYNOLDS and JOAN CHIEN: h/w : : v. : : STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE : INSURANCE COMPANY : CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I Shelly Farber, Esquire, aver that on 2/12/07 I caused a copy of the attached Response and Memorandum to be served via fax upon: Katherine Cole Douglas, Esquire at 215 561 6661

No. 06-cv-03013

Respectfully Submitted:

/s/ Shelly Farber SHELLY FARBER ESQUIRE PA Attorney ID 33726 Farber and Farber Law Offices 2619 West Chester Pike Suite 100 Broomall, PA 19008 610-356-3900 610-356-3952

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-20

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 1 of 6

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-20

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 2 of 6

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-20

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 3 of 6

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-20

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 4 of 6

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-20

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 5 of 6

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-20

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 6 of 6

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-21

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 1 of 6

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-21

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 2 of 6

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-21

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 3 of 6

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-21

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 4 of 6

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-21

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 5 of 6

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-21

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 6 of 6

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-22

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-22

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-22

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 3 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-23

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KENNETH REYNOLDS, ET AL. v. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY

: : : : :

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 2:06-cv-03013-LDD

ORDER

AND NOW, this 20th day of February, 2007, it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Transfer of Venue (Doc. No. 11) is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. This case stems from a car accident occurring on July 3, 2002 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Following the accident, plaintiffs filed the instant complaint seeking, in count one, uninsured/underinsured motorists benefits under an insurance policy issued by defendant. In count two, plaintiffs allege that defendant's insurance policy was illusory because it charged extra premiums without providing additional coverage. See Am. Compl. ¶ 4. In the present motion, defendant requests federal abstention under Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315 (1943), or, in the alternative, transfer of venue to the District of Delaware pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In response, plaintiffs consent to the transfer of count two, but request that this Court retain jurisdiction over count one. (Doc. No. 16.) Section 1404(a) provides: "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 Third Circuit has provided a nonexclusive list of factors that this 1

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-23

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 2 of 3

court should consider when ruling on a motion to transfer venue. See Jamara v. State Farm Insurance Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879-880 (3d Cir. 1995). Although the defendant bears the burden to establish the propriety of the transfer, it is only required to show that, "all relevant factors considered, the case would be better off transferred to another district." In re United States, 272 F.3d 380, 388 (3d Cir. 2001). After balancing the relevant factors, the court finds that transfer to the District of Delaware is proper. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); see also Stewart Organization, Inc., v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (granting District Court wide discretion to transfer for convenience and fairness). Plaintiffs are Delaware residents and defendant conducts business in Delaware. Plaintiffs' entitlement to uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits under an insurance agreement issued in Delaware is governed by Delaware law. Most importantly, defendant answers count two of the complaint by asserting that its insurance policy is consistent with the express terms of a Delaware insurance statute. Answer ¶ 4 (citing 18 Del. C.§ 3902(b-c)). In order to resolve this claim, this court would be required to interpret Delaware statutory authority, legislative history and public policy, and make a decision potentially affecting Delaware insurers and insureds. This is a task more properly performed by a court sitting in Delaware which, it may fairly be concluded, would have a greater familiarity with these unique aspects of Delaware law. See Landmark Bldg. Systems, Inc. v. Whiting-Turner Contracting Co., 2003 WL 21293812, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 21, 2003) (citing Connors v. R & S Parts & Services, Inc., 248 F.Supp.2d 394, 396 (E.D. Pa. 2003)). For this reason, the interests of justice are best served by transferring this matter to the District of Delaware.

2

Case 1:07-cv-00176-SLR

Document 20-23

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 3 of 3

Although plaintiffs' forum selection must generally be accorded significant weight, see Jamara, 55 F.3d at 880, plaintiffs have consented to the transfer of count two but request that this court retain jurisdiction over count one. The court finds no basis for bifurcating this case into two separate actions. Bifurcation would greatly inconvenience the parties and would waste judicial resources while creating the potential for inconsistent results. See Stewart Organization, Inc., 487 U.S. at 29 (§1404(a) designed to promote convenience of parties and witnesses); cf. Turner v. Crawford Squares Apartments III, L.P., 449 F.3d 542, 551 (3d Cir. 2006) (discussing, in res judicata context, the importance of conserving judicial resources and the need to minimize the risk of inconsistent results). For these reasons, it is ordered that the entire action shall be transferred to the United State District Court for the District of Delaware. No action is taken on defendant's motion for abstention pursuant to Buford, supra. Accordingly, this 20th day of February 2006, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant State Farm Insurance Company's Motion for Transfer of Venue (Doc. No. 11) is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The Clerk of Court shall close this matter for statistical purposes.

BY THE COURT: /S/LEGROME D. DAVIS Legrome D. Davis, J