IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

______________________________________ 

LAMAR M. HAUPT and : HON. MARY A. McLAUGHLIN 

CAROL M. HAUPT, : 

 Plaintiffs, : 

 : CIVIL ACTION NO. 02CV2717 

 v. : 

 : 

THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER : 

COMPANY, : 

 Defendant. : 

_______________________________________ 

O R D E R 

 AND NOW, this day of , 2002, upon 

consideration of the Defendant's Motion for Dismissal or Transfer for Forum Non 

Conveniens, any any response(s) thereto, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED 

that Defendant's Motion for Dismissal or Transfer for Forum Non Conveniens is 

GRANTED and: 

□ this matter is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice for Forum Non 

Conveniens; or 

□ this matter is hereby TRANSFERRED to the United States District 

Court, Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division. Costs and fees 

for transfer shall be borne by the Plaintiffs. 

 BY THIS COURT: 

 ________________________________ 

J. 

Case 2:02-cv-02717-MAM Document 6 Filed 07/25/2002 Page 1 of 12
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

_______________________________________ 

LAMAR M. HAUPT and : HON. MARY A. McLAUGHLIN 

CAROL M. HAUPT, : 

 Plaintiffs, : 

 : CIVIL ACTION NO. 02CV2717 

 v. : 

 : 

THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER : 

COMPANY, : 

 Defendant. : 

_______________________________________ 

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS OR TRANSFER 

FOR FORUM NON CONVENIENS

 NOW COMES Defendant, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company 

("Goodyear"), by and through its undersigned counsel, FREY, PETRAKIS, DEEB, 

BLUM, BRIGGS & MITTS, P.C., and respectfully requests that this Honorable 

Court dismiss or, in the alternative, transfer the within litigation for forum non 

conveniens on the following grounds. 

 1. Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges personal injuries arising out of a July 

20, 2000 motor vehicle accident ("accident") in which the tractor-trailer 

operated by Plaintiff, Lamar M. Haupt ("Mr. Haupt"), collided with another 

tractor-trailer in Orlando, Orange County, Florida. (A true and correct copy of 

Plaintiff's Complaint is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit A). 

 2. The tractor-trailer with which Mr. Haupt's tractor-trailer collided 

during this accident was operated by Henry Thomas ("Mr. Thomas"), a Florida

resident and a Goodyear employee who works out of Goodyear Commercial Tire 

and Service Center #2407 in Florida. 

Case 2:02-cv-02717-MAM Document 6 Filed 07/25/2002 Page 2 of 12
 3. Mr. Thomas has alleged that the collision may have been caused 

when the brakes failed on the tractor-trailer which he was operating. This 

tractor-trailer is available for inspection in Florida. 

 4. Any third parties which Goodyear may wish to implead, such as 

any persons or entities who serviced the brakes on the tractor-trailer for 

Goodyear, are located in Florida. 

 5. Any independent eyewitnesses to the accident are located in 

Florida. 

6. Any police officers or other persons who may have investigated the 

accident are located in Florida. 

 7. Despite the fact that this cause of action has no connection to the 

Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Plaintiffs chose to file their lawsuit in this 

district. 

8. While Plaintiffs reside at 797 Elm Street, Lehighton, Pennsylvania, 

this address is located in Carbon County, which is encompassed by the Middle 

District of Pennsylvania. (A map of the Middle District of Pennsylvania 

Counties is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit B). 

9. Upon information and belief, any medical treatment received by 

the Plaintiff took place in Carbon County. 

10. Thus, the forum selected by the Plaintiffs is inconvenient to both 

the Defendant and the Plaintiffs. 

11. In addition, counsel for the Plaintiffs has conceded that this 

litigation will be governed by Florida law. 

12. Also, the judges of the Middle District of Florida are less burdened 

than those of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. While both the Middle 

Case 2:02-cv-02717-MAM Document 6 Filed 07/25/2002 Page 3 of 12
District of Florida and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania are busy courts 

which each manage a little over 8,000 new cases per year, the Middle District of 

Florida is staffed by 33 judges (with 1 unfilled judgeship) while the Eastern 

District of Pennsylvania is staffed by approximately 20 judges (with 2 unfilled 

judgeships). (A true and correct copy of a portion of the Middle District of 

Florida's website is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit C). 

13. Florida has a strong interest in the controversy, given that this 

litigation involves the interpretation of Florida law, an evaluation as to whether 

violations of the Florida motor vehicle code contributed to the accident, a 

determination as to liability for an accident which occurred on Florida roads 

and involved a tractor-trailer locally owned and operated, and the possibility of 

impleader of local third party defendants whose conduct may have contributed 

to or caused the accident. 

14. By contrast, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has no interest 

in this controversy. 

15. Thus, this litigation pending in the Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania should be dismissed for forum non conveniens. 

16. In the alternative, because this is a matter of local concern to 

Florida courts and juries, and, where feasible, matters of local interest should 

be decided by local juries and local courts most competent to administer local 

law, this litigation should be transferred to the United States District Court, 

Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division. 

Case 2:02-cv-02717-MAM Document 6 Filed 07/25/2002 Page 4 of 12
WHEREFORE, Defendant, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, 

respectfully requests that this Honorable Court dismiss or, in the alternative, 

transfer the action of the Plaintiffs, Lamar M. Haupt and Carol M. Haupt, for 

forum non conveniens in the form of Order enclosed herewith. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 

By: _____________________________ 

Peter J. Deeb, Esquire 

Christine C. McGuigan, Esquire 

Atty. I.D. No. 42281/86784 

FREY, PETRAKIS, DEEB, BLUM 

BRIGGS & MITTS, P.C. 

1601 Market Street, Sixth Floor 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

(215) 563-0500 

Attorney for Defendant, The Goodyear 

Tire & Rubber Company 

Case 2:02-cv-02717-MAM Document 6 Filed 07/25/2002 Page 5 of 12
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

_______________________________________ 

LAMAR M. HAUPT and : HON. MARY A. McLAUGHLIN 

CAROL M. HAUPT, : 

 Plaintiffs, : 

 : CIVIL ACTION NO. 02CV2717 

 v. : 

 : 

THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER : 

COMPANY, : 

 Defendant. : 

_______________________________________ 

DEFENDANT'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF 

MOTION TO DISMISS OR TRANSFER 

FOR FORUM NON CONVENIENS

 NOW COMES Defendant, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company 

("Goodyear"), by and through its undersigned counsel, FREY, PETRAKIS, DEEB, 

BLUM, BRIGGS & MITTS, P.C., and submits the within Brief in support of its 

motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, transfer the within litigation for forum 

non conveniens. 

I. Facts

Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges personal injuries arising out of a July 20, 

2000 motor vehicle accident ("accident") in which the tractor-trailer operated by 

Plaintiff, Lamar M. Haupt ("Mr. Haupt"), collided with another tractor-trailer in 

Orlando, Orange County, Florida. (See Exhibit A). 

The tractor-trailer with which the Mr. Haupt's tractor-trailer collided 

during this accident was operated by Henry Thomas ("Mr. Thomas"), a Florida

resident and a Goodyear employee who works out of Goodyear Commercial Tire 

and Service Center #2407 in Florida. Mr. Thomas has alleged that the collision 

may have been caused when the brakes failed on the tractor-trailer which he 

was operating. This tractor-trailer is available for inspection in Florida. 

Case 2:02-cv-02717-MAM Document 6 Filed 07/25/2002 Page 6 of 12
 Any third parties which Goodyear may wish to implead, such as Mr. 

Thomas or any persons or entities who serviced the brakes on the tractor-trailer 

for Goodyear, are located in Florida. Any independent eyewitnesses to the 

accident are located in Florida. Any police officers or other persons who may 

have investigated the accident are located in Florida. 

Despite the fact that this case has no connection to the Eastern 

District of Pennsylvania (other than the location of counsel), Plaintiffs 

chose to file their lawsuit in this District. While Plaintiffs currently reside at 

797 Elm Street, Lehighton, Pennsylvania, this address is located in Carbon 

County, which is encompassed by the Middle District of Pennsylvania. (See

Exhibit B). Upon information and belief, any medical treatment received by the 

Plaintiff took place in Carbon County. Thus, the forum selected by the Plaintiffs 

is inconvenient to both the Defendant and the Plaintiffs. 

In addition, counsel for the Plaintiffs has conceded that this litigation 

would be governed by Florida law. Also, the judges of the Middle District of 

Florida are less burdened than those of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 

While both the Middle District of Florida and the Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania are busy courts which each manage a little over 8,000 new cases 

per year, the Middle District of Florida is staffed by 33 judges (with 1 unfilled 

judgeship) while the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is staffed by 

approximately 20 judges (with 2 unfilled judgeships). 

II. Argument 

The same factors utilized in deciding motions to dismiss for forum non 

conveniens are considered in evaluating motions to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 

Case 2:02-cv-02717-MAM Document 6 Filed 07/25/2002 Page 7 of 12
1404(a).1 See Rowles v. Hammermill Paper Co., 689 F. Supp. 494, 495 (E.D. 

Pa. 1998). These factors include: 

(1) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; 

(2) availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling 

witnesses; 

(3) cost of attendance at trial by willing witnesses; 

(4) the possibility of view of the premises, if appropriate; 

(5) all other practical problems that make trial of case, easy, 

expeditious, and inexpensive; and 

(6) public interest factors, including the relative congestion of court 

dockets, and the advantage of having local issues of law and fact 

determined by local courts and juries. 

Rowles, 689 F. Supp. at 495. See also Jennings v. Boeing Co., 660 F. Supp. 

796 (E.D. Pa. 1987) (dismissal on grounds of forum non conveniens was 

appropriate given careful balancing of factors); Ablaad v. General Motors Corp., 

538 F. Supp. 537 (E.D. Pa. 1982) (granting motion to dismiss for forum non 

conveniens, where accident occurred outside of the Commonwealth, the 

remains of the vehicle at issue were outside of the Commonwealth, where 

Pennsylvania law would not apply, and where the non-forum state had a strong 

interest in the controversy); Cai v. DeDonatis, 683 F. Supp. 510 (E.D. Pa. 1988) 

(granting motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens where, like here, the only 

connection to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania was the location of counsel). 

 

1 Section 1404(a) provides that "[f]or the convenience of the 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." 

Case 2:02-cv-02717-MAM Document 6 Filed 07/25/2002 Page 8 of 12
In the instant litigation, Goodyear's access to sources of proof would be 

sustantially hindered given that the scene of the accident, the tractor-trailer 

which requires inspection, eyewitnesses and investigating officers are all in 

Florida. There are no sources of proof in the Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania. By contrast, Mr. Haupt's sources of proof, such as his medical 

records from the Middle District of Pennsylvania, can easily be mailed to 

Florida. In addition, should it become necessary for Mr. Haupt's medical 

providers to testify, they can do so by videotape, which is routinely done 

anyway to accommodate doctors' hectic schedules. Additionally, Pennsylvania 

abides by the rule that, in evaluating forum non conveniens motions, "liability 

witnesses may be considered of higher quality and their convenience given more 

weight." Rowles, 689 F. Supp. at 496. "The reasoning behind this rule is that 

damage testimony would become relevant only if plaintiffs were to succeed on 

liability." Id. "The convenience of defendant's liability witnesses, therefore, is 

entitled to greater weight than the convenience of plaintiff's damage witnesses." 

Id. Consequently, here, the convenience of the liability witnesses in Florida is 

entitled to greater weight than the convenience of those damage witnesses in 

Pennsylvania.

Secondly, if this litigation were to continue in the Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania, Goodyear would be unable to secure compulsory process for the 

attendance of unwilling witnesses. In contast, Plaintiffs only witnesses would 

be themselves, who obviously would be willing to testify, and Mr. Haupt's 

physicians, who could easily testify by videotape. 

Case 2:02-cv-02717-MAM Document 6 Filed 07/25/2002 Page 9 of 12
Next, the overall cost of attendance at trial by willing witnesses would be 

lower in Florida since most witnesses are in Florida and there are no witnesses 

in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Thus, whereas only two people would 

need to travel if the case were litigated in the Middle District of Florida, all of 

the witnesses (whether in Florida of the Middle District of Pennsylvania) will 

need to travel long distances if the case remains in the Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania. In sum, this forum is inconvenient for everyone, including the 

Plaintiffs themselves. 

In addition, given that this case involves a motor vehicle accident (as 

opposed to a case involving a transactional matter), a view of the accident scene 

in Florida may become necessary in the future--particularly if third parties are 

joined as defendants. 

Other practical problems that would make trial of this case highly 

inconvenient in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania include the fact that 

Goodyear would be unable to implead third party defendants based in Florida. 

These third parties would include persons or entities involved in servicing the 

brakes on the tractor-trailer which Mr. Thomas claimed failed. The inability to 

implead third-party defendants is an important consideration favoring a forum 

non conveniens dismissal. Reyno v. Piper Aircraft Co., 630 F.3d 149, 161 (3rd 

Cir. 1980) 

Also, public interest factors strongly favor dismissal or transfer for forum 

non conveniens because the accident occurred in Florida, the litigation will 

require interpretation of Florida law, and the court will need to evaluate 

whether violations of the Florida motor vehicle code contributed to the accident. 

A state has a public interest in determining whether violations of its traffic 

Case 2:02-cv-02717-MAM Document 6 Filed 07/25/2002 Page 10 of 12
regulations contributed to the happening of a local automobile accident. See

Rowles, 689 F. Supp. at 497. Further, "[w]here feasible, matters of local 

interest should be decided by local courts most competent to administer local 

law." Id. 

Lastly, there is no justification for burdening the judges, court staff and 

jurors of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania with this action when this district 

has no connection to the cause of action. It should be noted that the judges of 

the Middle District of Florida are less burdened than those of the Eastern 

District of Pennsylvania. While both courts have busy dockets in that they each 

manage over 8,000 new cases per year, the Middle District of Florida is staffed 

by 33 judges while the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is staffed by 

approximately 20 judges. (See Exhibit C). Cf. Hall v. National Service 

Industries, Inc., 172 F.R.D. 157, 161 (E.D. Pa. 1997) (where defendant failed to 

provide any evidence or statistics comparing the congestion of courts). 

WHEREFORE, Defendant, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, 

respectfully requests that this Honorable Court dismiss or, in the alternative, 

transfer the action of the Plaintiffs, Lamar M. Haupt and Carol M. Haupt, for 

forum non conveniens in the form of Order enclosed herewith. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

By: _____________________________ 

Peter J. Deeb, Esquire 

Christine C. McGuigan, Esquire 

Atty. I.D. No. 42281/86784 

FREY, PETRAKIS, DEEB, BLUM 

BRIGGS & MITTS, P.C. 

1601 Market Street, Sixth Floor 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

(215) 563-0500 

Attorney for Defendant, The Goodyear 

Tire & Rubber Company 

Case 2:02-cv-02717-MAM Document 6 Filed 07/25/2002 Page 11 of 12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I, Christine C. McGuigan, Esquire, hereby certify that I served a true and 

correct copy of the foregoing Defendant's Motion for Dismissal or Transfer for 

Forum Non Conveniens and accompanying brief, by first class mail, postage 

prepaid on _________________ 2002, as follows: 

Armin Feldman, Esquire 

P.O. Box 206 

Berwyn, PA 19312 

 ___________________________________________ 

 CHRISTINE C. McGUIGAN, ESQUIRE 

 

Case 2:02-cv-02717-MAM Document 6 Filed 07/25/2002 Page 12 of 12