Situs of Material Events

In this suit, plaintiffs allege that the municipal and individual defendants wrongfully arrested
and imprisoned them for robbing the Knoxville, Illinois branch of the defendant bank and that the
bank breached its contract with them by disclosing their financial information to the police and by
failing to take steps to prevent that disclosure. (Compl. {J 12-31, 56.) The bank is located in the
Central District, the defendant municipalities, by whom the defendant police officers are employed,
are located in the Central District, and the plaintiffs live in the Central District. (Id. 4, 7-8, 10-
12.) Plaintiffs were stopped, interrogated, arrested and jailed’ in the Central District and the bank’s
alleged disclosure of their financial information occurred in the Central District. (Id. {9 21-31, 35-
39, 42, 56-60.)

Plaintiffs say, however, that the bank’s failure to train its employees to protect customer
information and to take other steps to prevent unauthorized disclosures likely happened at its
headquarters, which are in this district. Even if that is true, it does not change the fact that the vast
majority of the events underlying this suit occurred in the Central District. As a result, the situs of

material events factor weighs heavily in favor of transfer.

Ease of Access to Proof
The access to proof factor also favors transfer. Though the parties have not identified the
witnesses they intend to call at trial, the complaint reveals that all of the people who provided

information to the police concerning the robbery, who interrogated plaintiffs, conducted searches of

Though plaintiffs do not specifically allege that they were jailed in the Central District, that
is the only reasonable inference that can be drawn from the allegations in the complaint.

-4-


trials, trying related litigation together, and having a judge who is familiar with the applicable law
try the case.” Heller Fin., Inc. v. Midwhey Powder Co., Inc., 883 F.2d 1286, 1293 (7th Cir. 1989).

Defendant “has the burden of establishing, by reference to particular circumstances, that the
transferee forum is clearly more convenient.” Coffey, 796 F.2d at 219-20. Contrary to plaintiffs’
belief, however, that does not mean that defendants are required to submit affidavits or other
evidence in support of their motion. Rather, defendants must submit evidence only if their version

of the facts contradicts that alleged in the complaint. See, e.g., Avery Dennison Corp. v. Flexcon

Co., Inc., No. 96 C 4820, 1997 WL 106252, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 10, 1997) (“In considering a motion

to transfer venue, the court accepts all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true unless
controverted by defendants’ affidavits.”). Defendants’ motions assume the truth of plaintiffs’
allegations. Thus, if it is clear from plaintiffs’ allegations that the Central District would be a more

convenient forum, no additional evidence is required.

Plaintiffs’ Choice of Forum

Obviously, plaintiffs chose this forum. Though plaintiffs’ forum choice is usually accorded
great deference, such deference is inappropriate in this case because plaintiffs do not reside in this
district and, as discussed below, the litigation has no significant contact with it. Bryant v. ITT Corp.,
48 F. Supp. 2d 829, 832 (N.D. III. 1999); (Comp. 7 4). Accordingly, the fact that plaintiffs chose this

forum militates in favor of keeping the case here, but only slightly.


their residence and property, and made the decisions to arrest and detain them are located in the
Central District. (Id. ff 7-8, 10-12, 17-32, 35-42.) Moreover, the tangible evidence pertaining to
the tort claims — the bank surveillance tape, plaintiffs’ computer records, the photos from the
photographic lineup and the police and court records — is also located in the Central District.

Nonetheless, plaintiffs argue that the case should stay here because that is where the evidence
relating to the bank’s alleged failure to prevent the disclosure of their financial information is likely
to be. (Id. {| 56-57.) The premise of this argument, that such proof resides only at the bank’s
headquarters, is illogical. Though headquarters’ employees may be able to testify about the training
given to the Knoxville branch employees and the information controls in place there, the Knoxville
branch employees would be equally competent to do so.

Moreover, even if that evidence were only available here, that fact would not impact the
analysis much, The heart of plaintiffs’ suit, and the basis for eight of the nine counts, is their
unlawful arrests and imprisonment; the contract claim is clearly subsidiary. All of the evidence
concerning their arrests and imprisonment is in the Central District. Thus, even if one or two
witnesses pertaining to the contract claim are located here, on the whole, it will be easier for the

parties to access testimonial and documentary proof if the case is transferred to the Central District.

Convenience of the Parties

The convenience of the parties factor also favors transfer. All of the parties, including
plaintiffs, live, work or do business in the Central District. Thus, a trial in that district will be more
convenient for everyone. Everyone, that is, but plaintiffs’ counsel, whose offices are in Chicago.

The convenience of plaintiffs’ counsel, however, “is entitled to little (if any) weight” in the transfer

-5-


4 Minute Order Foym (06/97)

= \ ls United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
we ~~

Name of Assigned Jud; Sitting Judge if Other
oer Magistrate Judge Paul E. Plunkett thareaasiined Sudse
CASE NUMBER 02 C 246 DATE 5/30/2002
CASE SCOTT SORNBERGER, et al vs. FIRST MIDWEST BANCORP.INC..,et al
TITLE

of the motion being presented.]

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g,, plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

(1) o Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) a Brief in support of motion due

(3) oO Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer brief due

(4) im Ruling/Hearing on____sset for____att

(5) oO Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on___——ssetfor__—_—at

(6) oO Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on set for_— at
(7) QO Trial[set for/re-set for]on_at

(8) o [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to__ at.

(9) o This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

COFRCP4(m) (General Rule 21 COFRCP41(a)(1) CO FRCP41(a)(2).

presented before th transferee court.

(11) @ [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

| [Other docket entry} ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Defendants’ 28 USC
Section 1404(a) motions to transfer this case to the Central District of Illinois, Peoria Division, are
granted. Defendant First Midwest Bancorp’s motion to dismiss is dismissed without prejudice to being

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.
qt number of notices.

Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

Jun 8% 200

Notified counsel by telephone. date docketed

ov | Docketing to mail notices. lay D
| Mall AO 450 form. ' nea fet Ylsig sn cocTeing deputy fra
| Copy to judge/magistrate judge, aI TY
£46
courtroom . WY e- Kor 20 date mailed notice
1BK deputy’s Sie
initials OT oy as
Deterlirkt ceived in
central Clerk's Office aling deputy ints

Toe


analysis. Spherion Corp. v. Cincinnati Fin. Corp., No. 01 C 2272, 2002 WL 126096, at 6 (N.D. Ill.

Jan. 31, 2002).

Interests of Justice

The interests of justice factor is neutral. Both courts are familiar with the applicable law and
could ably resolve the claims in this suit. Moreover, there is no related litigation pending in either
district. Finally, the projected two-month difference in the wait for a trial in the Central District and

the wait for one here is not substantial enough to tip the scale for or against a transfer.

Conclusion
On the whole, the balance of the statutory factors favors transferring this case to the Central
District of Illinois, Peoria Division. The critical events took place there, the critical evidence and
witnesses are located there, and a trial in that district will be more convenient for all parties,
Defendants’ 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) motions to transfer are, therefore, granted. Defendant First
Midwest Bancorp.’s motion to dismiss is dismissed without prejudice to being presented before the
transferee court.

ENTER:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


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

SCOTT SORNBERGER and TERESA
SORNBERGER, individually and on
behalf of their children, CLAUDE
SPINALL and KAYLA BOWDEN,

DOCKETED

JUN 0 4 2002
No. 02 C 246
Paul E. Plunkett, Senior Judge

Plaintiffs,
v.

FIRST MIDWEST BANCORP, INC., d/b/a
FIRST MIDWEST BANK, CITY OF
KNOXVILLE, CITY OF GALESBURG,
RICK PESCI, DENNIS SHEPPARD,
ANTHONY RILEY and DAVID CLAUGE,

wee ee we we we we SS SS SY

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs have sued the municipal and individual defendants’ for a variety of state and federal
torts and the corporate defendant for breach of contract. The case is before the Court on motions to
transfer venue to the Central District of Illinois, Peoria Division (“Central District”) filed by First
Midwest Bancorp, Inc., City of Knoxville and Rick Pesci (collectively, “defendants”). For the

reasons set forth below, the motions are granted.

*The claims against three other defendants, Knox County, Paul Mangieri and Keith Rickard,

were dismissed on March 13, 2002.

-1-


Discussion

The Court may “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses [and] in the interest of justice
... transfer any civil action to another district or division where it might have been brought.” 28
U.S.C. § (“section”) 1404(a). Transfer is appropriate if: 1) venue is proper in the transferor district;
2) venue and jurisdiction are proper in the transferee district; and 3) the transfer will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice. Id.; see Chicago R.L. & P.R..
Co. v. Igoe, 212 F.2d 378, 379 n.1 (7th Cir. 1954) (noting that section 1404(a) “presupposes two
jurisdictions in which venue may be laid”). The parties do not dispute that venue is proper in this
district. Nor do they dispute that jurisdiction and venue would be proper in the Central District. The

only question, then, is whether defendants have met their burden of establishing “that the [Central

District] is clearly more convenient.” Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, Inc., 796 F.2d 217, 219-20

(7th Cir. 1986).

To answer that question, the Court must evaluate both the private interests of the parties and

the public interest in the efficient administration of justice. Tensor Group. Inc. v. All Press Parts &
Equip. Inc., 966 F. Supp. 727, 728 (N.D. Ill. 1997); see Coffey, 796 F.2d at 219 n.3 (stating that
statutory factors are “placeholders for a broader set of considerations, the contours of which turn
upon the particular facts of each case”), Private interests include: “(1) plaintiff’s choice of forum,
(2) the situs of material events, (3) the relative ease of access to sources of proof in each forum . .

. [and] (4) convenience to the parties — specifically, their respective residences and abilities to bear

the expense of trial in a particular forum.” Von Holdt v. Husky Injection Molding Sys., Ltd., 887

F. Supp. 185, 188 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Public interest factors include “such concerns as ensuring speedy