%

“Ser Form (06197)

United States District Court, Northern District of Ilinois a

7) a
Peepers Judge James B. Moran Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge
“CASE NUMBER 01 C 6126 DATE 11/27/2001
CASE Ann Weaver vs. Indiana Harbor Belt RR Co.
TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
of the motion being presented.} ae

MOTION:
Memorandum Opinion and Order
DOCKET ENTRY:
(1) oO Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due
(3) im Answer briefto motion due___. Reply to answer briefdue___.
(4) im} Ruling/Hearingon set for at
(5) Qa Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__——sset for at
(6) Qo Pretrial conference(held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on_____setfor___ ss at__—
(7) im Trial[set for/re-set for]on__at .
(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued toa
(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

OOFRCP4(m) OGeneral Rule 21 CFRCP41(a)(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).

ao) =f [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Defendant moves for transfer of the
action to the Northern District of Indiana, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). That motion is granted.

al) @f [For further detail see order attached to the 01

No notices required, advised in open court,

inal minute order.)

No notices required.

Notices mailed by judge's staff.

Notified counsel by telephone,

wv | Docketing to mail notices. ee] doa

vw } Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

ULEOY IT7BH he
courtroom PH As 0
WAH deputy's
initials

Date/titiie'received in
central Clerk’s Office mailing deputy initiats



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
ANN WEAVER, )
)
Plaintiff, y
)
vs. ) —_No.01 C6126 oe
» Noy METEp
INDIANA HARBOR BELT ) 29 2
RAILROAD COMPANY, ) 07
)
Defendant. )

MORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, a resident of Indiana, brings this FELA action against her Indiana employer
for injuries sustained in Indiana. Defendant moves for transfer of the action to the Northen
District of Indiana, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404(a). That motion is granted.
The courthouse in Hammond is not far from Chicago and virtually all the potential
witnesses are within the subpoena range of Fed.R.Civ.P. 45. Thus litigation here would not
be excessively inconvenient. But this case has no ties to Illinois other than plaintiff's counsel

(and that does not count) and a couple of doctors designated by the defendant, and they live

closer to Hammond than to downtown Chicago. All the other witnesses, except for one who
now resides in Florida, live in Indiana, and almost all of them reside or work east of
Hammond and would have to come through Hammond on the way to Chicago. Further, a
potential third party defendant is located in Indiana.

My colleagues have on various occasions transferred similar cases to the Northern
District of Indiana. See Albin v. Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Company, 96 C 5361 (Judge

James Alesia); Gasda v. Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Co., 1999 WL 592098 (N.D. IN.) (Judge

Rebecca R. Pallmeyer); Certa v. Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad, Memorandum Opinion and


No. 01 C 6126 Page2

Order, 98 C 3595 (Judge Joan Gottschall); Brill v. Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad, 98 C 3568
(Judge Charles Norgle); Smith v. JHB, 97 C1841 (Judge David Coar); Cosme v. Indiana
Harbor Belt Railroad, 98 C2525 (Judge James F. Holderman); and Diaz v. Indiana Harbor
Belt Railroad, 99 C 2247 (Judge George W. Lindberg). There may well be a feeling that filing
Indiana-based cases here has an element of forum shopping. In any event, litigating in
Hammond is more convenient for everyone, parties and witnesses; and the interest of justice,
given Indiana’s interest and Illinois’ lack of interest in this controversy, also supports

transfer.

by mesh, Wer

VA JAMES B. MORAN
ior Judge, U. S. District Court

Nov. ‘2X7, 2001.