Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_08-cv-05074/USCOURTS-arwd-5_08-cv-05074-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 385
Nature of Suit: Property Damage - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Property Damage

---

Also pending before the Court are defendant’s Motion to 1

Strike the Jerry James Report From Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief (Doc.

#107) and plaintiff’s Motion for Status Conference (Doc. #112).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT MYERS DIVISION

BRYAN and JANETTE ALDERSON; and

DAVID and PATRICIA CARMICHAEL, on

behalf of themselves and all others

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs. Case No. 2:06-cv-553-FtM-29SPC

GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.,

Defendant.

___________________________________

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on defendant’s Motion to

Transfer Action (Doc. #60), filed on July 25, 2007. Plaintiffs

filed an Opposition (Doc. #65) on August 17, 2007. The current

operative pleading is the Third Amended Class Action Complaint

(Doc. #56), filed on July 11, 2007, which dismissed the only

Florida plaintiff, Francis X. Kitchener. A Motion to Dismiss (Doc.

#73) was filed on August 24, 2007, and plaintiff filed a Motion for

Class Certification (Doc. #75) on August 27, 2007. 

1

Defendant moves to transfer this action, arguing that no

Florida nexus exists; that Arkansas is the more appropriate venue

and most convenient for the parties and witnesses. Plaintiff

Case 5:08-cv-05074-JLH Document 116 Filed 02/22/08 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
The Court rejects this basis as the motion was filed shortly 2

after the Third Amended Complaint was filed without the Florida

plaintiff. 

-2-

responds that the motion is simply a delay tactic , defendant has 2

failed to meet its burden, and that this Court is already familiar

with the pleadings.

I.

The Third Amended Complaint alleges that plaintiffs Bryan and

Janette Alderson are citizens of Bentonville, Arkansas and

purchased their GE refrigerator in Arkansas. (Doc. #56, ¶ 9.)

Plaintiffs David and Patricia Carmichael are citizens of Arizona

and obtained their GE refrigerator with the purchase of their

second home in Arkansas. (Id. at ¶ 10.) Defendant General

Electric Co. (GE or defendant) is a New York corporation with its

principal place of business in Easton, Connecticut and it

manufactures and sells refrigerators in Arkansas and throughout the

United States of America. (Id. at ¶ 11.) The putative class is

defined as “[a]ll persons in Arkansas who purchased a GE, side-byside refrigerator, manufactured since 2000.” (Id. at ¶ 12.)

Plaintiffs seek damages under Arkansas’s deception and

unconscionable trade practices law, ARK. CODE § 4-88-107(10);

damages for negligence directly and proximately caused by a defect

in the refrigerators; and damages under ARK. CODE § 4-86-102 for the

defective condition of the refrigerators. 

Case 5:08-cv-05074-JLH Document 116 Filed 02/22/08 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

GE’s Senior Litigation Counsel, by way of Declaration (Doc.

#61-2), states that its employees and operations are located in

Louisville, Kentucky; the refrigerators were manufactured in

Celaya, Mexico; and the refrigerators were sold, installed, and

will be repaired in Arkansas. 

II.

Under Section 1404(a), "[f]or 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." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The § 1404

transfer analysis has two steps: (1) does the district to which the

moving party seeks the transfer meet the requirement of being one

where the case "might have been brought; and (2) if it does, would

transfer serve the interest of the convenience of parties and

witnesses, and the "interest of justice." As to the first step,

plaintiffs do not dispute that the action could have been brought

in the Western District of Arkansas (Doc. #65, p. 5).

Additionally, GE admits to being subject to jurisdiction in

Arkansas (Doc. #60, p. 4), the purported class is limited to

Arkansas, and the statutory claims are under Arkansas law.

Therefore, the Court finds that the case “might have been brought”

in Arkansas.

As to the second step, the Court may consider several factors,

including: (1) the plaintiff's choice of forum; (2) the convenience

Case 5:08-cv-05074-JLH Document 116 Filed 02/22/08 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
-4-

of the parties and witnesses; (3) the location of relevant

documents and relative ease of access to sources of proof; (4) the

locus of operative facts; (5) the availability of process to compel

the attendance of unwilling witnesses; (6) the relative means of

the parties; (7) a forum’s familiarity with the governing law; (8)

the weight accorded a plaintiff’s choice of forum; and (9) trial

efficiency and the interests of justice, based on the totality of

the circumstances. Manuel v. Convergys Corp., 430 F.3d 1132, 1135

n.1 (11th Cir. 2005)(citation omitted). The moving party has the

burden of showing that a transfer is warranted. See Thermal Tech.,

Inc. v. Dade Serv. Corp., 282 F. Supp. 2d 1373, 1375 (S.D. Fla.

2003).

(1) Choice of forum, Weight Accorded: In the Eleventh

Circuit there is a “strong presumption against disturbing

plaintiffs’ initial forum choice.” SME Racks, Inc. v. Sistemas

Macaniocos Para Electornica, S.A., 382 F.3d 1097, 1100 (11th Cir.

2004). Plaintiff initiated this action in the State of Florida

based on the presence of a named plaintiff with citizenship in

Florida. That plaintiff has since been voluntarily dismissed and

the Court is not inclined to give the same deference to this forum

since it is no longer a “home forum” without the Florida plaintiff.

See La Seguridad v. Transytur Line, 707 F.2d 1304, 1307 (11th Cir.

1983). Plaintiff argues that this case was filed here because the

Court presided over a settlement in a similar class action against

Case 5:08-cv-05074-JLH Document 116 Filed 02/22/08 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
Although the undersigned entered the Opinion and Final Order 3

(2:05-cv-186-FTM-99DNF; Doc. #95), all preliminary matters were

handled by another judge who transferred to the Jacksonville

Division of the Middle District of Florida. In any event, it was

by random assignment that the undersigned received this case.

The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the distance 4

between Louisville, Kentucky and Bentonville, Arkansas is

approximately 591 miles; the distance between Louisville, Kentucky

and Bella Vista, Arkansas is approximately 583 miles; the distance

between Fort Myers, Florida and Bentonville, Arkansas is

approximately 1,309 miles; the distance between Fort Myers, Florida

and Bella Vista, Arkansas is approximately 1,315 miles; the

distance between Fort Myers, Florida and Louisville, Kentucky is

approximately 1,000 miles; and the distance between Fort Myers,

Florida and Arizona State is approximately 2,360 miles. 

-5-

GE. Plaintiff’s choice of forum does not include a choice of 3

presiding judge. Therefore, the Court rejects this as a basis to

maintain jurisdiction over the case. 

(2) Convenience of Parties and Witnesses: Plaintiffs argue that GE

has failed to carry its burden that travel expenses would be

minimized by transferring venue to Arkansas. As stated by

plaintiffs, depositions are scheduled to occur in Arkansas for all

named plaintiffs pursuant to an agreement. Additionally, the Court

rejects plaintiff’s argument that GE failed to offer “a scintilla

of proof” that Fort Myers, Florida is not closer to Arizona or

Kentucky then Bentonville, Arkansas. Plaintiffs proffer a July 4

17, 2007 Wall Street Journal article regarding the high cost of

airfare prices to airports in and around Bentonville, Arkansas.

(Doc. #66-23, Exh. W.) Contrary to plaintiff’s averments, the

Court finds that the presence of plaintiffs, or the presence of a

second home, in Arkansas actually minimizes costs for the parties

Case 5:08-cv-05074-JLH Document 116 Filed 02/22/08 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
-6-

as they would not have to use the airports to fly to Fort Myers,

Florida. Additionally, the article fails to provide details on how

the estimations were derived, i.e., whether booked in advance,

during peak periods, or from what starting point. The Court

further rejects and will not consider the convenience of counsel.

The presence of Florida counsel is not a basis to maintain venue in

this court.

Plaintiffs state that the refrigerators are currently located

in Tampa, Florida, at the offices of plaintiffs’ expert witness.

(Doc. #66, ¶ 43.) As of January 30, 2008, merit discovery had not

started and expert reports had not been completed. (See Doc.

#111.) Therefore, plaintiffs’ argument regarding the convenience

of their expert is not persuasive.

(3) Location of Documents, Ease of Access, Locus of Operative

Facts: Plaintiffs argue that documents are not a basis for

transfer as the parties have already exchanged documents.

Defendant argues that the majority of its documents will “likely be

in GE’s possession located in Louisville, Kentucky”, and

“plaintiffs’ documents would be in Arkansas.” (Doc. #60, p. 6.)

To the extent that documents or witnesses remain to be produced,

the convenience factor weighs in favor of transfer. To the extent

that discovery is now primarily electronic, the location of

documents has a minimal impact on the issue of transfer. 

Case 5:08-cv-05074-JLH Document 116 Filed 02/22/08 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
-7-

(4) Availability of Process to Compel Unwilling Witnesses:

Plaintiff concedes that the Arkansas-based witnesses would be

easier to compel if the case were transferred, and the Court finds

that the cost associated with travel to Florida for the repair

personnel and other third-party witnesses in the area would be

excessive if the case were not transferred. 

(5) Relative Means of the Parties: No one disputes that GE clearly

has vast resources that exceed the resources of plaintiffs,

however, the cost would be reduced if plaintiffs were to remain at

home or closer to their home with local counsel. Therefore, this

factor weighs in favor of transfer.

(6) Forum’s Familiarity with Governing Law: In this case, Arkansas

state law is largely controlling, and the Western District of

Arkansas is in a better position to consider its own state’s law.

See Kafack v. Primerica Life Ins. Co., 934 F. Supp. 3, 8 (D.D.C.

1996)(“interests of justice are best served by having a case

decided by the federal court in the state whose laws govern the

interests at stake.”)

(7) Trial, Interests of Justice, Totality of Circumstances: Based

on a review of all the above factors and a review of the current

status of the case, the Court finds that most if not all factors

weigh heavily in favor of a transfer. Dispositive motions have not

yet been considered, merit discovery has not commenced, and no

class has been certified, therefore the parties would suffer no

Case 5:08-cv-05074-JLH Document 116 Filed 02/22/08 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
-8-

prejudice. In the interests of justice and in the Court’s

discretion, the case will be transferred.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Action (Doc. #60) is GRANTED

and the case is transferred to the Western District of Arkansas for

all further proceedings. The Clerk shall immediately transfer the

contents of this file to that District, terminate all remaining

deadlines and motions herein, and close the Fort Myers file.

DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 22nd day of

February, 2008.

Copies: 

Hon. Sheri Polster Chappell

Counsel of record

DCCD

Case 5:08-cv-05074-JLH Document 116 Filed 02/22/08 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>