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

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 1 of 3

ARBITRATION, CLOSED

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:07-cv-01013-WY

ALLEN-ANDERSON v. MORRIS, JAMES, HITCHENS & WILLIAMS, LLP Assigned to: HONORABLE WILLIAM H. YOHN, JR Cause: 29:2601 Family Medical Act of 1993 Plaintiff VERONICA ALLEN-ANDERSON

Date Filed: 03/14/2007 Date Terminated: 07/02/2007 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

represented by JOSEPH G. MANTA 41 E. OAKLAND AVE., STE. 2 DOYLSTOWN, PA 19312 215-836-2453 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED MARK J. MANTA MANTACOLE PRINCETON CORPORATE CENTER 5 INDEPENDENCE WAY SUITE 300 PRINCETON, NJ 08540 609-514-5179 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant MORRIS, JAMES, HITCHENS & WILLIAMS, LLP represented by MICHAEL J. OSSIP MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 MARKET STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215-963-5761 Fax: 215-963-5001 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/14/2007

#

Docket Text 1 COMPLAINT against MORRIS, JAMES, HITCHENS & WILLIAMS,

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 2 of 3

LLP ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 937683.), filed by VERONICA ALLEN-ANDERSON.(tj, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 4/24/2007 (jpd, ). (Entered: 03/14/2007) 03/14/2007 03/14/2007 03/20/2007 Summons Issued; 1 Mailed to counsel 3/14/07 as to MORRIS, JAMES, HITCHENS & WILLIAMS, LLP. (tj, ) (Entered: 03/14/2007) DEMAND for Trial by Jury by VERONICA ALLEN-ANDERSON. (tj, ) (Entered: 03/14/2007) 2 ORDER THAT THE ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTER IS HEREBY REFERRED TO ARBITRATION. SIGNED BY JUDGE WILLIAM H. YOHN JR. ON 3/20/07. 3/20/07 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED (jpd) (Entered: 03/20/2007) 3 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by VERONICA ALLENANDERSON. MORRIS, JAMES, HITCHENS & WILLIAMS, LLP waiver sent on 4/13/2007, answer due 6/12/2007. (jpd, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/3/2007 (jpd, ). (Entered: 05/02/2007) 4 Disclosure Statement Form pursuant to FRCP 7.1 with Certificate of Service by MORRIS, JAMES, HITCHENS & WILLIAMS, LLP.(OSSIP, MICHAEL) (Entered: 06/12/2007) 5 Defendant's Answer and Affirmative Defenses ANSWER to Complaint to Plaintiff's Complaint by MORRIS, JAMES, HITCHENS & WILLIAMS, LLP.; Jury Demand, Certificate of Service. (OSSIP, MICHAEL) Modified on 6/13/2007 (nd). (Entered: 06/12/2007) 6 MOTION to Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware filed by MORRIS, JAMES, HITCHENS & WILLIAMS, LLP.Proposed Order; Memorandum and Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Affidavit of David H. Williams) (OSSIP, MICHAEL) (Entered: 06/12/2007) 7 Memorandum in Opposition re 6 MOTION to Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware filed by VERONICA ALLEN-ANDERSON, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (MANTA, MARK) Modified on 7/2/2007 (afm, ). (Entered: 06/29/2007) 8 ORDER THAT THE DEFENDANTS MOTION TO TRANSFER IS GRANTED AND THIS ACTION IS HEREBY TRANSFERRED TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE. SIGNED BY JUDGE WILLIAM H. YOHN JR. ON 7/2/07. 7/3/07 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED. (jpd) (Entered: 07/03/2007) Original record together with certified copy of docket entries forwarded to District of Delaware. (jpd) (Entered: 08/02/2007)

05/02/2007

06/12/2007

06/12/2007

06/12/2007

06/29/2007

07/02/2007

08/02/2007

PACER Service Center

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 3 of 3

Transaction Receipt
08/08/2007 09:02:25 PACER Login: ud0037 Description: Billable Pages: 1 Client Code: Cost: 0.08 Docket Report Search Criteria: 2:07-cv-01013-WY

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-2

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-2

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-2

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-2

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 4 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-3

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 1 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-3

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 2 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-3

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 3 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-3

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 4 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-3

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 5 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-4

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA VERONICA ALLEN-ANDERSON vs. MORRIS, JAMES, HITCHENS & WILLIAMS, LLP : CIVIL ACTION : : : : : NO. 07cv1013 ORDER AND NOW, this 19th day of March, 2007, the above-captioned matter is hereby referred to arbitration, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The case shall proceed to disposition pursuant to Local Civil Rule 53.2. 2. No discovery or motions, except motions in limine, will be allowed after the arbitration except upon order of the court upon good cause shown as to why the discovery or motion requested could not have been reasonably anticipated and completed prior to the arbitration. 3. No brief filed in support of or in opposition to any motion shall exceed twenty-five (25) pages in length without prior leave of court. Although a reply brief is discouraged and ordinarily not helpful, the moving party may file a reply brief, limited to a maximum of seven (7) pages, within five (5) business days of the filing of the opposing party's response. 4. All motions for summary judgment or partial summary judgment shall be filed and served at least thirty (30) days prior to the arbitration date. In addition to a brief, any party filing a motion for summary judgment or partial summary judgment shall file a separate, short and concise statement, in numbered paragraphs, of the material facts as to which the party contends there is no genuine issue to be tried. The party must support each of the material facts with specific citations to the underlying record, and attach a copy of the relevant portions of that record, if practicable and not already of record. Failure to submit such a statement of material facts with citations may constitute ground for denial of the motion. The opposing party shall file a separate, short and concise statement, responding to the numbered paragraphs in the moving party's statement, of the material facts as to which the opposing party contends there is a genuine issue to be tried and shall conform to the record citation requirements listed above. All factual assertions set forth in the statement required to be served by the moving party shall be deemed admitted unless controverted by the statement required to be served by the opposing party. 5. Counsel are advised that, should any party demand a trial de novo after the filing of an arbitration award, this case will be scheduled for trial immediately upon the filing of said

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-4

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 2 of 2

demand. In that event, plaintiff's pretrial disclosure required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(3)(A) and (C) and pretrial memorandum required by Local Civil Rule 16.1(c)(1)(2)(3)(6) and (7) shall be filed within seven (7) days of the filing of the demand for trial de novo and defendant's pretrial disclosure and pretrial memorandum required by the same rules shall be filed within fourteen (14) days of the filing of the demand for trial de novo. 6. Any party having an objection to the admissibility of any exhibit based on authenticity or the adequacy of the qualifications of an expert witness expected to testify, shall set forth separately each such objection in their pretrial memorandum. Such objection shall describe with particularity the ground and the authority for the objection. 7. Should any party demand a trial de novo after the filing of an arbitration award, all parties are directed to advise the court within seven (7) days of the filing of the demand for trial de novo as to whether that party will consent to a reference of the matter to Magistrate Judge Charles B. Smith for disposition in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

s/William H. Yohn Jr.___________ William H. Yohn Jr., Judge

2

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-5

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 1 of 1

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-6

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-6

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 2 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-7

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 1 of 7

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-7

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 2 of 7

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-7

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 3 of 7

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-7

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 4 of 7

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-7

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 5 of 7

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-7

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 6 of 7

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-7

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 7 of 7

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-8

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 1 of 13

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-8

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 2 of 13

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-8

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 3 of 13

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-8

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 4 of 13

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-8

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 5 of 13

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-8

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 6 of 13

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-8

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 7 of 13

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-8

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 8 of 13

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-8

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 9 of 13

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-8

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 10 of 13

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-8

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 11 of 13

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-8

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 12 of 13

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-8

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 13 of 13

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-9

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-9

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 2 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-10

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 1 of 18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
________________________________________________________________________ VERONICA ALLEN-ANDERSON, : : Plaintiff, : : Civil Action No. 07-CV-1013 v. : : MORRIS, JAMES, HITCHENS, & : WILLIAMS, LLP, : : Defendant. : ________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ______________________________________________________________________

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-10

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 2 of 18

I. Introduction
Veronica Anderson instituted this lawsuit due to violations of her rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1331. The Defendant, Morris James, Hitchens & Williams ("Morris James") is a large law firm with four offices in the state of Delaware. Ms. Anderson tried unsuccessfully to retain counsel in Delaware. Unfortunately, the substantial presence of Morris James in the state could be responsible for Ms. Anderson's inability to retain local counsel in Delaware. Ms. Anderson was only finally able to retain representation through MantaCole, LLC ­ out of state counsel. Upon accepting Ms. Anderson's case, both Joseph Manta and Mark J. Manta attempted to retain local counsel in Delaware. Joseph Manta contacted the following attorneys in an attempt to retain counsel: a. David A Bilson, Esq. of Phillips, Goldman and Spence; b. Gary Aber, Esq. of Aber, Goldlust, Baker & Over; c. Jeff Martin, Esq. of Margolis, Edelstein; d. Tom Neuberger, Esq.; and e. Martin Haverly, Esq.

Joseph Manta Aff. ¶ 5.

Mark Manta also contacted several attorneys including:

f. Knepper & Stratton, Barbara Stratton, Esquire, 1228 N. King Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801. g. Laurence I. Levinson, 1326 King Street, Wilmington, Delaware, 19801. h. Gary W. Aber, Aber, Goldlust, Baker & Over, 702 King Street; Wilmington Delaware, 19899.

2

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-10

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 3 of 18

i. Richard R. Weir, Jr. PA, Two Mill Road, Wilmington, Delaware, 19806. j. Law Offices of Dennis Bruce Phifer, PA, 1500 Shallcross Ave. Suite 2B, Wilmington, DE 19806. Mark J. Manta Aff. ¶ 10. Morris James is a large firm who has previously defended cases in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.1 Their argument of convenience is weak due to the extremely short distance between Delaware and Pennsylvania. By train, the ride is twenty (20) minutes, by car about thirty (30) minutes. Defendant can hardly contend that this "location" is "inconvenient" to any party or witness. Further, Plaintiff will suffer more than inconvenience if her case is transferred; she will suffer the loss of her counsel and the dismissal of her case. The interests of justice would surely not be served if venue is transferred and Plaintiff is denied her day in court. Plaintiff has chosen this forum and her choice should not be cast aside lightly. For this and below, this Court should honor Plaintiff's choice and deny Defendant's Motion to Transfer.

II. Argument Transfer is Improper Because Pennsylvania is the Forum of Plaintiff's Choice
1. Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Counsel Considered Bringing Suit in Delaware but Could Not Obtain Local Counsel Plaintiff concedes that this matter theoretically might have been brought in the District of Delaware pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404(a). However, Plaintiff had to bring suit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, if she were to have counsel, and "the

Peters v. Brandywine Asset Management, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8561; 133 Lab. Case (CCH) P58, 189 (1996). 3

1

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-10

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 4 of 18

plaintiff's choice of forum is generally entitled to great weight." Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879-80 (3d Cir. 1995). While Plaintiff is a resident of Delaware, several factors have influenced her need to file her complaint in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. First and foremost, Plaintiff was unable to retain counsel in the district of Delaware. Plaintiff's counsel also attempted to retain local counsel and was equally unsuccessful. (See the Affidavits of Mark J. Manta and Joseph Manta attached as Exhibits A and B respectively). While defense counsel makes much of the fact that Plaintiff is a resident of Delaware and Morris James' offices are located in Delaware, the court has not held this to be conclusive of where a suit must be brought. In Curry v. Weeks Marine, Inc., both parties resided in New Jersey and the injured party, Michael Curry, was treated for his injuries in New Jersey. 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3963, *3 (1998). Mr. Curry elected to bring suit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the court denied the employer's motion to transfer venue to New Jersey "because it found that the balance of conveniences did not weigh so strongly in favor of transfer that the [plaintiff's] choice of forum should be disturbed." Id. In discussing the plaintiff's residence, the court stated that the fact that he was a resident of New Jersey was "not compelling." In fact, the court went on to say, "If in fact it is inconvenient for Plaintiff to come to Philadelphia, he is entitled to inconvenience himself. Id. at *7. See also Austin v. Johns-Manville Corporation, 524 F. Supp. 1166, 1169 (E.D. Pa. 1981) ("plaintiffs have the option of choosing an inconvenient forum in order to obtain counsel or for other reasons"). Id. (emphasis added). Such is the case with Ms. Anderson. She was left with little choice as to venue due to the fact that Delaware law firms were unwilling to bring a case against

4

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-10

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 5 of 18

Morris James. Her rights were violated and she was forced to seek counsel in a neighboring state. If Plaintiff is willing to travel into Pennsylvania to have her case tried, Defendant should do the same. 2. Changing Venue Would Cause Irreparable Harm to Plaintiff As stated above neither Plaintiff nor Plaintiff's counsel were able to retain counsel in Delaware. Therefore, to transfer venue to Delaware would cause Plaintiff to lose the only counsel willing to argue this case and would thus lead to its dismissal. When contemplating a motion to transfer, Section 1404(a) sets out three factors that courts should consider before issuing their ruling: 1) the case could have been brought initially in the forum to which the defendant seeks transfer; 2) the proposed transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses; and 3) the proposed transfer will be in the interests of justice. 28 U.S.C.A. 1404 (a). Plaintiff concedes the first prong and the

second will be discussed infra. As to the third prong and the "interest of justice," surely justice would not be served if plaintiff were to lose the out of state law firm able to take her case. While the court also takes into consideration numerous private and public interests2 when deciding such a motion, surely none of these factors would be given such

Private interests include: 1) plaintiff's forum preference as manifested in the original choice; 2) the defendant's preference; 3) whether the claim arose elsewhere; 4) the convenience of the parties as indicated by their relative physical and financial condition; 5) the convenience of the witnesses ­ but only to the extent that the witness may actually be unavailable for trial in one of the fora and 6) the location of books and records (similarly limited to the extent that the files could not be produced in the alternative forum). As to public interest, courts examine: 1) the enforceability of the judgment; 2) practical considerations that could make the trail easy, expeditious, or inexpensive; 3) the relative administrative difficulty in the two for a resulting from court congestion; 4) the local interest in deciding local controversies at home; 5) the public policies of the fora and 6) the familiarity of the trial judge with the applicable state law in diversity cases. Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879-880. 5

2

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-10

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 6 of 18

substance as to outweigh the gravity of the resultant dismissal of plaintiff's case should a change in venue be granted. 3. Venue Should Remain in Pennsylvania in the Interest of Justice a) Plaintiff's Initial Choice of Forum is Paramount in this Particular Case In Shutte v. Armco Steel Corporation, the court stated that the plaintiff's preference of a forum provides the "starting point" for deciding when to order a change of venue: It is black letter law that a plaintiff's choice of a proper forum is a paramount consideration in any determination of a transfer request, and that choice should not be lightly disturbed. In accord with that sound doctrine, one district court recently correctly observed: "The decision to transfer is in the court's discretion, but a transfer is not to be liberally granted." The burden is on the moving party to establish that a balancing of proper interests weigh in favor of the transfer, "unless the balance of convenience of the parties is strongly in favor of defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum should prevail." Levanios' v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15336 citing Shutte, 431 F.2d 22, 25 (1970).

Courts have continuously accorded "a presumption in favor of Plaintiff's venue preference..." Royal Insurance Company v. Packaging Coordinators, Inc., et al. 2000 U.S. Dist LEXIS 14174, *4. The courts have repeatedly held that although there are factors that the defendant can raise to persuade the court that transfer is justified, "any slight weight in favor of transfer is counterbalanced by the deference which must be paid to Plaintiff's choice of forum." Agrotors, Inc. v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. and Auto Valve, Inc. 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3641, *11 (2004). While the courts have held that a plaintiff's choice of forum is accorded less deference, where as in this case, the plaintiff 6

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-10

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 7 of 18

does not reside in the forum chosen, the Plaintiff's choice of forum "should not be lightly disturbed." See e.g. Boyd v. C & M Carriers, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7763, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 7, 2003) (denying transfer to the Eastern District where the defendants were subject to personal jurisdiction in the Middle District, and the Middle District was both the domicile of the plaintiffs and the location of the events that gave rise to the action because a plaintiff's choice of forum should not be "lightly disturbed"); see also Bretz v. Exel Logistics, Inc., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12903, Civ. A. No. 92-2067, 1992 WL 212343, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 26, 1992) (finding that a non-resident plaintiff's choice of forum is paramount). Id. As in Agrotors, while the deference to Plaintiff's choice of forum may be lessened in the present case, the Defendants have failed to show that this forum is so profoundly inconvenient to justify a disturbance of Plaintiff's preference. b) Location of Documents and Witnesses is Not an Issue Because the Present Forum is Convenient to Both Parties Defendant argues that it would prefer to try the case in Delaware because it resides there and all relevant documents and witnesses are located in Delaware. However, defendant does not argue that to try the case in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania would be unfair or that travel to and from the court would be cost prohibitive. The location in Pennsylvania is twenty (20) minutes by train from Wilmington, Delaware to Philadelphia, PA. If Defendants were to drive to Philadelphia, it is a thirty (30) minute car ride. Further, defendants possess greater financial resources than plaintiff. See Moy v. Rose View Center, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87757, *15. (Because the distance between the two forums is not great, convenience of documents and witnesses should not be paramount in the consideration to transfer the case.) "Courts

7

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-10

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 8 of 18

have deviated from the `multi-factored balancing test where the transfer requested involves a forum which is a relatively short distance from the original forum. Instead, such courts have simply refused to consider transfer, arguing that the statute was not intended for these types of transfers." Curry supra at *8 citing Jumara, 55 F.3d at 880. See also 15 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller, and Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure §3854 (1986) (noting the distance between the two fora is a factor which relates "primarily to the convenience of the parties and the witnesses . . . it has been held that Section 1404(a) should not be invoked for transfer between two courts if there is only a relatively short distance between them and it can be traveled easily"). Id. Further, Plaintiff's documents and records are not voluminous and can easily be transferred to this venue. See Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879 which states that the location of books and records only supports a transfer of venue when they cannot be produced in another forum. Finally, "a mere showing of inconvenience to the defendant is not enough to warrant transfer where it would merely shift the expense and inconvenience to the other party." Busch v. Sea World of Ohio, 95 F.R.D. 336, 341 (W.D. Pa. 1982). In the present case, a transfer of venue would be more than inconvenient for plaintiff; it would cause the dismissal of her case for lack of counsel. With regard to witnesses, Defendant states that all but one of the witnesses live in Delaware.3 Defendant, does not, however state that these witnesses would be unavailable to testify in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. "Generally, witnesses' inconvenience shall be considered by the Court upon allegations of unavailability, but we need not give weight to this factor in the instant matter because no one here alleges that witnesses will The other witness lives in Pennsylvania. Defendants Affidavit of David H. Williams, ¶6. 8
3

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-10

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 9 of 18

be unavailable in the either of the fora." Agrotors, supra at *6. Further, because the two forums are so close, convenience is not a real issue. "[C]onsidering the various means of transportation, the close proximity of the two districts minimalizes Defendants' convenience arguments in our analysis of factors that aid our decision regarding a transfer of venue in this case." Id. Both the cost of travel for witnesses and the cost to transfer documents to this venue are de minimus and therefore they should not be allowed to upset Plaintiff's choice of forum. See Curry at *10 (. . . on balance, the convenience of witnesses and the relative ease of access to sources of proof, the availability of compulsory process of unwilling witnesses and the cost of attendance at trial by willing witnesses all weigh in favor of not disturbing Plaintiff's choice of forum.) Defendant's argument of inconvenience is simply unfounded. A 54-minute car ride or 34-minute train ride is not prohibitive. This short distance would not result in Defendant's witnesses being unable to testify in court nor would it cause a restraint on document production. All of the above coupled with Plaintiff's inability to obtain counsel in Delaware weighs strongly in favor of not disrupting Plaintiff's choice of venue. c) Public Interest is Served as this is a Federal Dispute and Affects Residents of All States With regard to the public interests, enforceability of the judgment is a non-issue not even raised by Defendants. Further, Defendants have not offered any argument that transferring the case to Delaware would lead to a less expensive or more expeditious trial. This is a case involving a violation of federal act and therefore there is no "local interest" in deciding the matter in Delaware. Finally, as stated by the Supreme Court in Van

9

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-10

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 10 of 18

Dusen v. Barrack, "[T]here is nothing * * * in the language or policy of §1404(a) to justify its use by defendants to defeat the advantages accruing to plaintiffs who have chosen a forum which, although it was inconvenient, was a proper venue." Shutte at **8 citing Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 84 S. Ct. 805, 11 L. Ed. 2d 945 (1964). Plaintiff's choice is paramount even when she does not choose her home forum. Defendants have not shown that their witness and documents could not be produced in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Nor have they demonstrated that they would incur great cost or inconvenience in producing their witness and documents in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Absent this showing, Defendant has failed to establish the burden necessary to displace Plaintiff's choice of forum.

III.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Veronica Andersons respectfully requests that

Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue to the District of Delaware is hereby denied. Respectfully submitted, /s Mark J. Manta, Esquire MANTACOLE, LLC Princeton Corporate Center 5 Independence Way, Suite 300 Princeton, New Jersey 08540 609-514-5179 Attorneys for Plaintiff Veronica Anderson

10

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-10

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 11 of 18

EXHIBIT A

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-10

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 12 of 18

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-10

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 13 of 18

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-10

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 14 of 18

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-10

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 15 of 18

EXHIBIT B

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-10

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 16 of 18

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-10

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 17 of 18

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-10

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 18 of 18

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

VERONICA ALLEN-ANDERSON, 119 Falcon Lane Wilmington, DE 19808 Plaintiff,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO. 07-cv-1013

v. MORRIS, JAMES, HITCHENS, & WILLIAMS, LLP 500 Delaware Ave, Ste 1500 Wilmington, DE 19801 Defendant I, Mark J. Manta, of full age, do certify that:

Civil Action CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

1. I am an attorney-at-law in the State of Pennsylvania and am a partner/member of MantaCole, LLC, attorneys for Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter. 2. On June 29, 2007 I caused to be served via email and First Class U.S. Mail, Opposition to Motion for Change of Venue upon: Michael J. Ossip, Esq. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 /s Mark J. Manta, Esquire MantaCole, LLC 5 Independence Way, Ste 300 Princeton, NJ 08540 (609) 514-5179 [email protected]

Case 1:07-cv-00482-GMS

Document 8-11

Filed 08/03/2007

Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA VERONICA ALLEN-ANDERSON vs. MORRIS, JAMES, HITCHENS & WILLIAMS, LLP : CIVIL ACTION : : : : : NO. 07cv1013 ORDER AND NOW, this 2nd day of July, 2007, upon consideration of defendant's motion to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and plaintiff's response thereto, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED and this action is hereby transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.1

s/William H. Yohn Jr. William H. Yohn Jr., Judge

Plaintiff makes only two arguments against the transfer. First, plaintiff points out that although she lives in Delaware, her choice of forum in Pennsylvania should be given deference. However, when the chosen forum is not the plaintiff's home forum, that choice is given considerably less weight. Her second argument is that she has been unable to obtain an attorney in Delaware to represent her because she is suing a Delaware law firm. Whether that is true or not, she has obtained the services of a Pennsylvania attorney. Nothing would prevent him from appearing pro hac vice in Delaware. Weighing his interest in litigating this action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania versus the fact that plaintiff and defendant are located in Delaware, all of the documents are located in Delaware, all of the witnesses are located in Delaware except one who is located in the Middle District of Pennsylvania and all of the actions that occurred giving rise to the litigation occurred in Delaware, it is clear that these factors outweigh the interest of plaintiff's counsel in retaining the action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

1