0743070.01 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOSEPH MARINO : 

: CIVIL ACTION 

 v. : 

: NO. 02-cv-4488 

KENT LINE INTERNATIONAL d/b/a : 

VOYAGEUR SHIPPING LTD. : 

 and : 

SLS, INC. d/b/a HOLT OVERSIGHT AND : 

LOGISTICAL TECHNOLOGIES : 

 and : 

INCHCAPE SHIPPING : 

DEFENDANT INCHCAPE SHIPPING AND SLS, INC.’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION 

TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE

 Defendants Inchcape Shipping and SLS, Inc., by and through their attorneys, 

Respond in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Change of Venue as follows: 

1. -11. Admitted. 

2. Denied to the extent the allegation is a conclusion of law. 

3. Denied. The foreign-flagged vessel was berthed at New Jersey. 

4. Admitted. 

5. Denied. 

6. Denied. The Amended Answer of Kent Line waives the defense of lack of 

personal jurisdiction. 

7. Denied. The Amended Answer of Kent Line waives the defense of lack of 

personal jurisdiction. 

Case 2:02-cv-04488-BMS Document 25 Filed 11/12/2002 Page 1 of 10
0743070.01 

2

8. Defendant Kent Line’s Answer has been supplemented by the filing of an 

Amended Answer. 

9. See Amended Answer of Kent Line. 

10. Admitted. 

11. Admitted. 

12. Answering defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 22 and therefore, deny the same and demand strict 

proof at trial. 

 WHEREFORE, it is respectfully submitted that the just, speedy and inexpensive 

resolution of every action compels a denial of this Motion, and that the matter remain before this 

Honorable Court. 

 RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP 

 By:______________________________ 

 Ann-Michele G. Higgins, Esquire 

 The Widener Bldg., 16th Floor 

 One S. Penn Square 

 Philadelphia, PA 19107 

(215) 575-4200 

Attorney for Defendant, 

 Inchcape Shipping 

DATED: __________________________ 

 MATTIONI, LTD. 

 By:______________________________ 

 Faustino Mattioni, Esquire 

 399 Market Street, 2nd floor 

Case 2:02-cv-04488-BMS Document 25 Filed 11/12/2002 Page 2 of 10
0743070.01 

3

 Philadelphia, PA 19106-2138 

 Attorney for Defendant, 

 SLS, Inc. 

DATED: __________________________ 

 

Case 2:02-cv-04488-BMS Document 25 Filed 11/12/2002 Page 3 of 10
0743070.01 

4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOSEPH MARINO : 

: CIVIL ACTION 

 v. : 

: NO. 02-cv-4488 

KENT LINE INTERNATIONAL d/b/a : 

VOYAGEUR SHIPPING LTD. : 

 and : 

SLS, INC. d/b/a HOLT OVERSIGHT AND : 

LOGISTICAL TECHNOLOGIES : 

 and : 

INCHCAPE SHIPPING : 

DEFENDANT INCHCAPE SHIPPING AND SLS, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW 

IN SUPPORT OF THEIR RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION 

TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE

 Plaintiff seeks a transfer of venue in this case from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to 

the District of New Jersey. Inchcape Shipping Services and SLS, Inc. are opposed to this Motion 

because it serves no beneficial purpose to any party, and because it is a waste of judicial 

resources.

 Plaintiff chose its venue by seeking to file in state court in Pennsylvania. Defendants 

timely removed, and withstood a Motion to Remand initiated by plaintiff. The parties filed their 

responsive pleadings, including the fact that no party has contested the jurisdiction of this Court. 

While Kent Line initially preserved a defense of lack of personal jurisdiction, it subsequently 

filed an Amended Answer with the Court withdrawing this defense. Therefore, the case has the 

Case 2:02-cv-04488-BMS Document 25 Filed 11/12/2002 Page 4 of 10
0743070.01 

2

ability to proceed in this Court with appropriate subject matter jurisdiction, and without objection 

by any party, save by plaintiff at this late juncture. 

 Initially, we note that the Supreme Court has advised that the test to evaluate a venue 

transfer is no different whether a plaintiff or a defendant seeks the transfer. Ferens v. John 

Deere Co., 494 U.S. 516 (1990). Significantly, in Ferens, the Supreme Court held that § 

1404(a), the venue statute, does not deprive parties of the state-law advantages that initiated their 

shopping for a forum in the first instance. However, as federal maritime law controls this claim, 

even that factor does not weigh in favor of a transfer. Therefore, as applied to this case, plaintiff 

obtains no advantage, or indeed difference, if his filing is heard in Pennsylvania or New Jersey. 

As the Third Circuit controls both Pennsylvania and New Jersey, it is difficult to see how the 

only basis cited by plaintiff, “the interest of justice,” even bears sightly in favor of transfer. 

 A motion to transfer venue is decided pursuant to the private interest and public interest 

factors delineated in Gulf Oil v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1946). An analysis of the Gulf Oil 

factors compels that the Motion seeking venue be denied: 

 Under the private interest factors, we will presume that plaintiff was treated in 

Pennsylvania, rather than New Jersey. Second, looking to the defendants, Kent Lines has an 

office in neither Pennsylvania nor New Jersey, so that does not weigh in favor of one forum over 

the other. However, Inchcape does have a local office, which is located in Pennsylvania. 

Plaintiff has sought further information from Inchcape’s local office, and any information 

relevant to the claim would be located in Pennsylvania rather than New Jersey. Plaintiff’s 

allegations relate to actions upon a foreign-flagged vessel while it was in navigable waters. 

Under the circumstances, if there are any inquiries to regulatory agencies such as the United 

States Coast Guard, or the Army Corps of Engineers, both of these entities maintain offices in 

Case 2:02-cv-04488-BMS Document 25 Filed 11/12/2002 Page 5 of 10
0743070.01 

3

Philadelphia, rather than New Jersey. Finally, plaintiff’s correspondence issued by counsel to 

serve as Self-Executing Disclosure, identifies no witnesses, and mentions only that it has a host 

of documents. See Exhibit “A.” Therefore, there is no record that any of the witnesses is located 

in New Jersey. This evaluation on the private interest side compels that a Pennsylvania Court 

rather than a New Jersey Court hear the action, and plaintiff’s Motion should therefore be 

denied. An evaluation of the public interest factors also dictates denial of the Motion. 

While the litigation is still in the early stages, the parties have answered various sets of Requests 

for Admission propounded by plaintiff related to the action. Additionally, the Court has already 

set a Scheduling Order, which would be disrupted if the matter needs to proceed in New Jersey 

instead of Pennsylvania. The other factors indicate no other advantage to plaintiff of New Jersey 

over Pennsylvania, as the only remaining factor that would be different would be the trial judge. 

Zelenkofske Axlerod Consulting v. Stevenson, 1999 WL 592399 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 5 1999), citing 

Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir. 1995). Finally, an overall analysis of 

public factors requires the Court to abide by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which at Rule 

1 compels the “just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every matter.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 1; 

Inductotherm Corp. v. Pillar Corp., 417 F.Supp. 911 (E.D. Pa. 1976). A transfer at this point to 

a Judge in New Jersey would disrupt that goal, and would add more expense and delay to the 

matter. Indeed, while the Motion is technically not controlled by the “first-filed rule”, Stone 

Creek Mechanical Inc. v. Carnes Co., Inc. 2002 WL 31424390 (E.D. Pa. Oct 25 2002), the issue 

is analogous and the Court has the final say in its disposition. 

 Finally, as noted and as supported by the Ferens case, plaintiff’s choice of law will not be 

disturbed whether there is a Motion to Transfer Venue or not; federal maritime law controls 

regardless of where filed. Therefore, this is no compelling reason that supports plaintiff’s change 

Case 2:02-cv-04488-BMS Document 25 Filed 11/12/2002 Page 6 of 10
0743070.01 

4

at this juncture for a different venue and the interest of justice requires that plaintiff’s Motion be 

denied as “[t]he fairest and most efficient cause [is] to permit the parties to litigate all aspects of 

the dispute in the forum where the controversy was first raised. Zelenkofske Axlerod Consulting 

v. Stevenson, 1999 WL 592399 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 5 1999). 

 For these reasons, defendants Inchcape Shipping Services and SLS, Inc. seek that 

plaintiff’s Motion for a Change of Venue be denied. 

 RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP 

 By:______________________________ 

 Ann-Michele G. Higgins, Esquire 

 The Widener Bldg., 16th Floor 

 One S. Penn Square 

 Philadelphia, PA 19107 

(215) 575-4200 

Attorney for Defendant, 

 Inchcape Shipping 

DATED: __________________________ 

 MATTIONI, LTD. 

 By:______________________________ 

 Faustino Mattioni, Esquire 

 399 Market Street, 2nd floor 

 Philadelphia, PA 19106-2138 

 Attorney for Defendant, 

 SLS, Inc. 

DATED: __________________________ 

Case 2:02-cv-04488-BMS Document 25 Filed 11/12/2002 Page 7 of 10
0743070.01 

5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of defendant Inchcape Shipping 

and SLS, Inc.’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Change of Venue, was sent via 

U.S. first class mail, postage pre-paid to the following counsel and/or parties of record: 

 Thomas More Holland, Esquire 

Law Offices of Thomas More Holland 

 1522 Locust Street 

 Grace Hall 

 Philadelphia, PA 19102 

 Attorney for Plaintiff

 A. Robert Degen, Esquire 

 Fox, Rothschild, O’Brien & Frankel 

 2000 Market Street, Tenth Floor 

 Philadelphia, PA 19103-3291 

 Faustino Mattioni, Esquire 

 Mattioni, Ltd. 

 399 Market Street, 2nd floor 

 Philadelphia, PA 19106-2138 

 RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP

 By:_______________________________ 

 Anne A. Cave 

 The Widener Building 

 One South Penn Square 

 Philadelphia, PA 19107 

 (2l5) 575-4200 

DATED: ____________________________ 

Case 2:02-cv-04488-BMS Document 25 Filed 11/12/2002 Page 8 of 10
0743070.01 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of defendant Inchcape Shipping 

and SLS, Inc.’s Memorandum of Law, was sent via U.S. first class mail, postage pre-paid to the 

following counsel and/or parties of record: 

 Thomas More Holland, Esquire 

Law Offices of Thomas More Holland 

 1522 Locust Street 

 Grace Hall 

 Philadelphia, PA 19102 

 Attorney for Plaintiff

 A. Robert Degen, Esquire 

 Fox, Rothschild, O’Brien & Frankel 

 2000 Market Street, Tenth Floor 

 Philadelphia, PA 19103-3291 

 Faustino Mattioni, Esquire 

 Mattioni, Ltd. 

 399 Market Street, 2nd floor 

 Philadelphia, PA 19106-2138 

 RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP

 By:_______________________________ 

 Anne A. Cave 

 The Widener Building 

 One South Penn Square 

 Philadelphia, PA 19107 

 (2l5) 575-4200 

DATED: ____________________________ 

Case 2:02-cv-04488-BMS Document 25 Filed 11/12/2002 Page 9 of 10
0743070.01 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOSEPH MARINO : 

: CIVIL ACTION 

 v. : 

: NO. 02-cv-4488 

KENT LINE INTERNATIONAL d/b/a : 

VOYAGEUR SHIPPING LTD. : 

 and : 

SLS, INC. d/b/a HOLT OVERSIGHT AND : 

LOGISTICAL TECHNOLOGIES : 

 and : 

INCHCAPE SHIPPING : 

ORDER

 AND NOW, TO WIT, this day of , 2002, it is 

hereby ORDERED and DECREED that plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer Venue be DENIED. 

 __________________________________ 

 J.

Case 2:02-cv-04488-BMS Document 25 Filed 11/12/2002 Page 10 of 10