Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01062/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01062-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without *

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

Defendant has not appeared in this action and has not yet been 1

served; however, Plaintiffs’ counsel has been in contact with

Defendant’s counsel. (Status Report ¶ a.) 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 )

)

RAQUEL KUHNHAUSEN AND LATOYA ) 

JENKINS, )

) 2:06-cv-1062-GEB-DAD

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

ROBERT DWYER, )

)

Defendant. )

)

Plaintiffs move to transfer venue from the Eastern District

of California to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1404(a) (2006). Defendant did not file an opposition to this

motion.1

BACKGROUND

On May 14, 2004, Plaintiffs and Defendant were involved in a

motor vehicle accident in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (Pl.’s Mot.

at 3.) Both Plaintiffs reside in California. (Pl.’s Mot. at 3.) 

Case 2:06-cv-01062-GEB-DAD Document 14 Filed 09/15/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Defendant and two eyewitnesses to the accident reside in Pennsylvania. 

(Stawicki Decl. ¶ 3(A)-(D).) Both Plaintiffs sustained injuries as a

result of this accident. (Pl.’s Mot. at 3.) Plaintiffs received

medical care in Pennsylvania immediately following the accident, and

then continued their medical treatment in California. (Id. at 3-4.) 

Plaintiff filed this action in the Eastern District of California

alleging diversity subject matter jurisdiction exists because

Plaintiffs and Defendant reside in different states and Plaintiffs

allege damages in excess of $75,000; therefore, the Eastern District

of Pennsylvania would have diversity subject matter jurisdiction as

well. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (2006). 

DISCUSSION

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), an action may be transferred

“[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of

justice . . . to any other district or division where it might have

been brought.” This action could have been brought in the Eastern

District of Pennsylvania since Plaintiffs aver that Defendant lives in

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, which is in the Eastern District of

Pennsylvania. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) (2006) (stating that venue is

proper in any district where the defendant resides). 

The purpose of section 1404(a) is to “prevent the waste of

time, energy, and money and to protect litigants, witnesses and the

public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense.” Van Dusen v.

Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964). Courts must engage in a “case by

case consideration of convenience and fairness.” Id. at 622. “When

deciding whether to transfer a case under section 1404(a) a district

court must weigh several factors, including: (1) the plaintiff’s

choice of forum; (2) the convenience of the parties; (3) the

Case 2:06-cv-01062-GEB-DAD Document 14 Filed 09/15/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

convenience of the witnesses; and (4) the interests of justice.” 

Ready Transportation, Inc. v. AAR Manufacturing, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 57202, *11 (E.D. Cal. July 28, 2006). 

Here, it is Plaintiffs who request venue be transferred. 

Plaintiffs aver that most of the witnesses to the accident live in

Pennsylvania. (Stawicki Decl. ¶ 3(B), (C).) The police officer who

responded to the scene of the accident lives in Pennsylvania. 

(Stawicki Decl. ¶ 3(D).) The expert witnesses and doctors who treated

Plaintiffs immediately following the accident live in Pennsylvania. 

(Stawicki Decl. ¶ 3(E), (F).) Plaintiffs received a significant

amount of their medical treatment in California, but Plaintiffs assert

that a critical issue in this litigation will be whether Defendant was

negligent when his car hit Plaintiffs’ vehicle, and therefore, the

witnesses to the accident will be crucial to Plaintiffs’ case. (Pl.’s

Mot. at 3, 5.) 

“The interest in having the trial of a diversity case in a

forum that is at home with the law that must govern the action” favors

transfer, Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 241 (1981), and

Plaintiffs state the “Eastern District of Pennsylvania is . . . most

familiar with the state law to be applied.” (Pl.’s Mot. at 7.) 

CONCLUSION

For the stated reasons, this action is transferred to the

United States District Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-01062-GEB-DAD Document 14 Filed 09/15/06 Page 3 of 3