No.  2--00--0223				 			    		

	IN THE

	APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

	SECOND DISTRICT

LAURIE OLSSON,	)	Appeal from the Circuit Court

	)	of Du Page County.

	Plaintiff-Appellant,	)	

		)	

v.	)	No. 98--L--1256

	)

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,	)	

BILL SULLIVAN PONTIAC, INC.,	  )

and FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF	  )

CHICAGO,					  )	Honorable

	)	James W. Jerz,

	Defendants-Appellees.	)	Judge, Presiding.

	JUSTICE GEIGER delivered the opinion of the court:

	The plaintiff, Laurie Olsson, appeals from the January 27,

2000, order of the circuit court of Du Page County transferring her

case to the circuit court of Cook County pursuant to the doctrine

of forum non conveniens.  On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the transfer.  We

affirm.

	The facts relevant to this appeal are as follows.  On December

4, 1998, the plaintiff filed suit in the circuit court of Du Page

County against the defendants, General Motors Corporation (GM),

Bill Sullivan Pontiac, Inc. (Sullivan Pontiac), and the First

National Bank of Chicago (First National Bank).  As subsequently

amended, the complaint consisted of six counts and alleged causes

of action for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, revocation of acceptance, consumer fraud, rescission of

retail installment contract, and loss of bailed goods.

	The amended complaint alleged that the plaintiff purchased a

new vehicle from Sullivan Pontiac on April 22, 1997.  During the

months of June 1997, August 1997, September 1997, and October 1997,

the plaintiff brought her vehicle to Sullivan Pontiac for repair

work under the vehicle's warranty.  On June 22, 1998, the plaintiff

again brought her vehicle to Sullivan Pontiac for additional

repairs and/or warranty work.  While the vehicle was at Sullivan

Pontiac on this occasion, there was a rainstorm.  The amended

complaint alleged that the vehicle was parked in an area prone to

flooding and that, during the storm, the vehicle was damaged.

	On July 1, 1999, Sullivan Pontiac filed a motion to transfer

venue pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens.  In its motion, Sullivan Pontiac noted that all of the events alleged in

the amended complaint occurred at its place of business in

Arlington Heights, Cook County.  Sullivan Pontiac also noted that

the plaintiff was not a resident of Du Page County but instead

resided in McHenry County.  Accordingly, Sullivan Pontiac argued

that, after considering the relevant private and public interest

factors, the case had no practical connection to Du Page County and

should be transferred to Cook County.

	The motion was supported by the affidavit of Jeffrey Sullivan,

the general manager of Sullivan Pontiac.  In his affidavit, Jeffrey

Sullivan indicated that Sullivan Pontiac's principal place of

business is in Arlington Heights, Cook County, and that Sullivan

Pontiac did not have an office or solicit business in Du Page County.  Jeffrey Sullivan further indicated that the sale,

financing, and subsequent repairs of the vehicle occurred at the

dealership in Cook County and that the salesman, finance manager,

and various mechanics who worked with the plaintiff remain employed

by the dealership.  Additionally, the alleged flooding of the

vehicle also occurred at the dealership.

	In a supplemental affidavit, Jeffrey Sullivan identified nine

potential witnesses in the case.  These individuals included the

service manager, various mechanics who worked on the plaintiff's

vehicle, the salesperson who sold the plaintiff the vehicle, and

the finance manager who assisted the plaintiff in obtaining

financing.  None of these individuals resided in Du Page County.

	GM and First National Bank subsequently filed notices of their

intent to join in Sullivan Pontiac's motion to transfer venue

pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

	In reply to the defendants' motion, the plaintiff argued that

she had selected Du Page County as the venue to file the action and

that her preference was entitled to considerable weight.  The

plaintiff also argued that the defendants had failed to offer any

evidence demonstrating that they were substantially inconvenienced

by the selected forum or that the relevant private and public

factors favored transfer.  Additionally, the plaintiff noted that

GM had its regional headquarters in Naperville, Du Page County.

	In support of her reply, the plaintiff attached excerpts from

the depositions of Jeffrey Sullivan, Rhenea Cump, and Lonnie

Greenwald.  In his deposition, Jeffrey Sullivan testified that

litigating the case in Du Page County would be as convenient as litigating the case in downtown Chicago.  He also testified as to

his belief that downtown Chicago was farther from the dealership

than Wheaton.  Rhenea Cump and Lonnie Greenwald were managers who

worked out of GM's regional headquarters in Naperville, Du Page

County.  Cump and Greenwald were identified by GM as the employees

having the most involvement and knowledge in the case.  Cump

resided in Libertyville, Lake County, and Greenwald resided in

Aurora, Du Page County.  Greenwald testified that it was more

convenient to travel to Wheaton than to downtown Chicago.

	On January 27, 2000, following arguments of counsel, the trial

court granted the defendants' motion and transferred the case to

the circuit court of Cook County.  The trial court found that the

case did not have a strong connection to Du Page County.  Although

the trial court noted that the plaintiff had selected Du Page

County as the venue, it did not give this selection significant

deference because the plaintiff was not a resident of Du Page

County.  The trial court further noted that the dealership and many

of the witnesses resided in Cook County.  The trial court noted

that the dealership was located only minutes away from the Rolling

Meadows branch of the circuit court of Cook County and that, even

if the case were assigned to downtown Chicago, the availability of

public transportation made that location more convenient for the

witnesses.  Finally, the trial court did not believe that jurors in

Du Page County should sit on a case that had no significant

connection to the community.

	On March 30, 2000, this court allowed the plaintiff's petition

for leave to appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(2) (166

Ill. 2d R. 306(a)(2)).

	On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the trial court abused

its discretion in transferring the case to the circuit court of

Cook County.  The plaintiff argues that the trial court failed to

give adequate deference to her selection of the forum and that the

defendants failed to prove that the relevant private and public

factors strongly favored transfer to Cook County.

	The doctrine of forum non conveniens is an equitable doctrine that presupposes the existence of more than one forum with

jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.  Griffith v. Mitsubishi Aircraft International, Inc., 136 Ill. 2d 101, 105 (1990).  Under the doctrine, a court may decline to exercise

jurisdiction over a case where it appears that there is another

forum with jurisdiction over the parties in which the trial can be

had more conveniently.  Carlberg v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 199 Ill. App. 3d 127, 130 (1990).  The doctrine is not only applicable to

cases involving other states but also may be applied to effectuate

intrastate transfers between counties within Illinois.  Peile v. Skelgas, Inc., 163 Ill. 2d 323, 336 (1994).  The trial court is vested with considerable discretion in its determination of whether

transfer is warranted on the basis of forum non conveniens principles.  The trial court's decision is subject to reversal only

if the court abused its discretion.  Peile, 163 Ill. 2d at 336.

	The doctrine of forum non conveniens is a flexible one that requires the evaluation of the total circumstances rather than

concentration on any single factor.  Peile, 163 Ill. 2d at 336-37.

The private interest factors to be considered may include the

relative ease of access to sources of proof, the accessibility of witnesses, the possibility of a jury view of the premises if

appropriate, and all other practical problems that make the trial

of a case expeditious and inexpensive.  Washington v. Illinois Power Co., 144 Ill. 2d 395, 399 (1991).  The public interest considerations include having localized controversies being decided

in a local forum, administrative concerns, including the congestion

of court dockets, and the imposition of jury duty upon residents of

a county with little connection to the litigation.  Griffith, 136 Ill. 2d at 106.

	A further consideration under the forum non conveniens doctrine is deference to the plaintiff's choice of forum.  Peile, 163 Ill. 2d at 337.  A plaintiff's right to select the forum is a

substantial one, and unless the factors weigh strongly in favor of

transfer, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be

disturbed.  Peile, 163 Ill. 2d at 337.  However, the plaintiff's choice of forum is entitled to less deference where the situs of

the injury is not located in the chosen forum and the plaintiff is

not a resident of the chosen forum.  Peile, 163 Ill. 2d at 337-38.

	Turning to the instant case, the private interest factors tend

to favor Cook County as the more convenient forum.  Most of the

evidence relevant to this case is located in Cook County.  The

dealership facilities and the allegedly flood-prone property are

located in Cook County, as are the relevant repair and warranty

records.  Moreover, almost all of the relevant witnesses in this

case are employees of Sullivan Pontiac who work at its dealership

in Cook County.  Most of these individuals live in either northern

Cook County or Lake County.  Although requiring these witnesses to travel to the Du Page County courthouse in Wheaton would not cause

great inconvenience (see Griffith, 136 Ill. 2d at 113), the availability of public transportation to downtown Chicago makes

travel to the Cook County courthouse easier.  Additionally, the

possibility exists that the matter might be transferred to the

Rolling Meadows branch of the circuit court of Cook County, which

is near Sullivan Pontiac's location in Arlington Heights.

	The plaintiff argues that Du Page County would be a more

convenient location for the two GM employees who are based out of

GM's regional headquarters in Naperville, Du Page County.  However,

an examination of the deposition testimony of GM employees Cump and

Greenwald demonstrates that they rarely work in GM's Naperville

office.  Cump testified that her work regularly requires her to

travel to car dealerships in northern Cook County and Lake County

and that she most often works out of her home in Libertyville, Lake

County.  Greenwald also testified that he rarely works at the

Naperville office and that he regularly travels to car dealerships

in northern Cook County.  Based upon such testimony, a trial in Du

Page County would not necessarily be more convenient for these

witnesses.

	The relevant public interest factors even more strongly favor

transfer of the case to Cook County.  The plaintiff's complaint

arises from the sale of an automobile that took place in Cook

County.  All of the alleged repairs and damage to the vehicle also

took place at the same location.  The only connection that this

case has to Du Page County is the fact that GM and First National

Bank maintain offices and do business there.  Although this fact may be of relevance in establishing jurisdiction and venue in Du Page County, the fact that GM and First National Bank transact

other business in Du Page County is not an important factor in

weighing the forum non conveniens motion.  Bland v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 116 Ill. 2d 217, 226 (1987); Carlberg, 199 Ill. App. 3d at 132.

	We therefore agree with the trial court that Du Page County

lacks a strong connection with this litigation.  Because thata strong

connection is lacking, the public interest does not favor requiring

Du Page County and its community to provide a forum for the

plaintiff's case.  Carlberg, 199 Ill. App. 3d at 132.  Although the relative congestion of the Cook County docket compared to that in

Du Page County is a factor worthy of consideration, this factor

alone is not sufficient to justify burdening Du Page County with a

lawsuit in which it has no interest.  Carlberg, 199 Ill. App. 3d at 132.

	Throughout her brief, the plaintiff repeatedly asserts that

the transfer is not appropriate in the instant case because she

selected Du Page County as the venue to bring her action.  We would

agree with the plaintiff if either the situs of her injury were in

Du Page County or if she were a resident of Du Page County. 

However, as this was not the case, her selection of the forum is

entitled to less deference.  Peile, 163 Ill. 2d at 337-38.

	The plaintiff also objects to the trial court's reliance on

Carlberg v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 199 Ill. App. 3d 127 (1990), in reaching its decision.  Carlberg involved two consolidated cases that were originally filed in Du Page County.  Similar to the instant case, the cases in Carlberg involved claims for breach of warranty and revocation of acceptance relating to vehicles that had

been purchased from dealerships in Cook County.  In both cases, the

named defendants were the dealership, the automobile manufacturer,

and the financing entity.  Carlberg, 199 Ill. App. 3d at 129.  Although the plaintiffs were not residents of Du Page County, both

the manufacturer and the financing entities maintained offices in

Du Page County.  Carlberg, 199 Ill. App. 3d at 129-30.

	On review, this court held that the relevant factors strongly favored a transfer of the case to Cook County and that the trial

court erred in denying the defendants' motions to transfer. 

Carlberg, 199 Ill. App. 3d at 132-33.  Because the record was silent as to the location of possible witnesses and records, we

found that the private interest factors did not favor one forum

over the other.  However, we noted that the relevant public

interest factors favored a transfer to Cook County because the sale

of the cars occurred in Cook County.  Carlberg, 199 Ill. App. 3d at 131-33. We noted that the litigation was unrelated to the

manufacturers' and financing entities' offices in Du Page County

and that Du Page County therefore lacked any relevant or practical

connection with the litigation.  Carlberg, 199 Ill. App. 3d at 132.  We also held that the plaintiffs' selection of the forum was

entitled to less deference because they were not residents of Du

Page County.  Carlberg, 199 Ill. App. 3d at 133.

	The plaintiff argues that this court's forum non conveniens analysis in Carlberg placed undue emphasis upon the situs of the incident.  The plaintiff asserts that, in doing so, we ignored the defendant's burden of proof to demonstrate that the balance of the

relevant factors strongly favored transfer (see Peile, 163 Ill. 2d at 345).  However, a careful reading of Carlberg demonstrates that the plaintiff's criticism is unfounded.  As detailed above, this

court thoroughly discussed all of the relevant factors and

concluded that the balance of these factors strongly favored

transfer of the case to Cook County.  Carlberg, 199 Ill. App. 3d at 133.  Although the situs of the plaintiffs' injuries was certainly

an important factor in our decision, we note that the situs of the

injury will always have a direct bearing on many of the factors to

be considered in a forum non conveniens analysis.  We therefore find no error in the trial court's reliance upon Carlberg in reaching its decision in the instant case.

	After reviewing the relevant factors in their totality, we

agree that they strongly favor transfer of this case to Cook

County.  Accordingly, we therefore believe conclude that the defendants

have sustained their burden and that the trial court did not abuse

its discretion in granting the motion to transfer.

	For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court

of Du Page County is affirmed.

	Affirmed.

	McLAREN and HUTCHINSON, JJ., concur.