Illinois) and in the transferee court (Middle District of
Florida).

II. SGonvenience of the Parties and Witnesses

Next, this Court considers the effect that transferring this
matter would have on the convenience of the parties and the
witnesses. When weighing the conveniences, the court should
consider five factors: (1) the plaintiff's choice of forum, (2)
the situs of the material events, (3) the relative ease of access
to sources of proof, (4) the convenience of the parties, and (5)
the convenience of the witnesses. Amoco v. Mobil, 90 F. Supp.2d
958, 960 (N.D. Tll. 2000). Also, the movant bears the burden of
establishing, by reference to particular circumstances, that the
transferee forum is clearly more convenient. Raddenbach, at *1

A, Plaintiff's Choice of Forum

Generally, the plaintiff's choice of forum is entitled to
substantial weight, especially when it is a plaintiff’s home

forum. Sky Valley Ltd, Partnership v. ATX Sky Valley, Ltd., 776

F. Supp. 1271, 1276 (N.D. T11. 1991). “However, the weight given
to a plaintiff’s choice of forum is lessened if the chosen forum
has relatively weak connections with the operative facts giving
vise to the claim.” Von Holdt v. Husky Injection Molding
Systems, Ltd., 887 F. Supp. 185,188 (N.0, f11. 1995). Here, the
Trust has resided in Chicago, Illinois, since 1989. Its

president, C. Moore Tucker, although a Florida resident,


Therefore, Vinoy has not met its burden of showing that this case

should be transferred to the Middle District of Florida,

Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, Vinoy’s motion to transfer

venue is denied.

ENTER:

Cpor M. Marovich
e@ States District Judge

DATED: . (0 R003



the records; this Court is unable to make a determination as to
the correct location of the pertinent records, Therefore, this
factor does not weigh in favor or against transferring venue.

D. Convenience of the Parties

The relevant facts do not weigh in favor of a transfer based
on convenience of the parties. The Trust operates in Chicago,
Illinois, although its president, C. Moore Tucker, is a Florida
resident. C. Moore Tucker attends to business in Chicago and
frequents this District. Vinoy no longer operates out of
Florida, Rather, it conducts its business from Phoenix, Arizona.
Thus, the Middle District of Florida does not seem to be very
convenient for either party. This weighs in Favor of the
transferor court.

E. Convenience of the Witnesses

“The party seeking transfer must clearly specify the key
witnesses to be called and make a general statement of their

testimony.” Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Sims, 870 F.

Supp. 870, 877 (N.D. Tll, 1994). A court does not look to which
party has the longest witness list, but rather the nature and
quality of the witnesses’ testimony with respect to the case.
Id. at 876. The only two witnesses Vinoy mentions as possible
witnesses are the former secretary for Vinoy, who resides in
Florida, and C. Moore Tucker, the president of the Trust, who

resides in Florida. C. Moore Tucker has stated that he will be


periodically travels to Chicago, Illinois for personal and
business reasons, This factor weighs heavily against transfer,
since the Northern District of Illinois is the Trust’s choice of
forum and also its home forum.

B. Situs of the Material Events

This Court also must determine the situs of the material
events that give rise to this cause of action. The only material
event which gave rise to this cause of action is a breach of
contract between the Trust and Vinoy. A breach can only be
committed in the venue which the breaching party, Vinoy, made its
business decisions and where the funds were withheld. Hine v.
Lime-O-Sol Co., 231 F. Supp. 2d 795, 795 (N.D. Ill. 2002), Vinoy
relocated its business headquarters to Phoenix, Arizona, in May
of 2001, before the breach occurred on December 22, 2002,
Therefore Phoenix, Arizona is where the business decisions were
made at the time of the breach and the situs of the material
events for the breach of contract. This factor does not give
weight to either Illinois or Florida as the proper venue since
the breach was committed in Phoenix, Arizona,

C. Ease of Access to Sources of Proof

Vinoy claims that all records pertaining to the Note are in
Florida, while the Trust claims that the records are in Phoenix,
Arizona, Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Chicago, Illinois. Both the Trust

and Vinoy have attached affidavits attesting to the location of



Florida law than the Northern District of Illinois. However, the
issue before this Court is an issue involving contract law.
Generally, contract law is not particularly complex. Amoco v

Mobil, 90 F. Supp. 2d 958, 962 (N.D. Ill. 2000). Also, Florida

and Illinois have adopted the Uniform Commercial Code, making
either forum able to aptly apply Florida contract law. This
factor weighs in favor of neither transfer nor retention.

Finally, this Court looks to the docket congestion of both
the Northern District of Illinois and the Middle District of
Florida. The most recent statistics regarding judicial caseload
indicate the Northern District of Illinois had 459 civil filings,
with the median time from filing to disposition 5.5 months and
from filing to trial 26 months. Meanwhile, the Middle District
of Florida had 421 civil filings, with the median time from
filing to disposition 10.4 months and from filing to trial 19.3
months. (Statistics Div., Admin. Office of the U.S. Courts, 2002
Fed, Ct. Mgmt. Stat. 101, 161 (2003)) Based on these statistics,
a case may proceed to trial more quickly in the Middle District
of Florida, but may be disposed of on motion more quickly in the
Northern District of Illinois. These statistics do not weigh in
favor of either the transferor or transferee court.

Vinoy has not established that transferring this case to the
Middle District of Florida would serve either the convenience of

the parties or the witnesses, much less the interests of justice.



ee —————_————x—_—_—_—

Minute Order Porm (06/97)
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Neng Auians er | George M. Marovich | sit nde oer
CASE NUMBER 03 C 1250 DATE 9/10/2003
CASE The Bethine W. Alberding Estate Administration Trust vs. Vinoy Park Hotel Company
TITLE
{In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢-g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintif¥, and (b) state bricfly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.)
DOCKET ENTRY:
(1) Q Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
Q) a Brief in support of motion due
(3) im Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer briefdue_.
(4) QO Ruling/Hearing on set for at.
(3) a Status hearing set for 9/24/03 at 11:00AM.
(6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at,
(7) im Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) QO [Bench/Jury tial] [Hearing] held/continnedto_— ss at__
(9) a This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OFRCP4(m) © Local Rule 41.1 OCFRCP4i(a)(1) OO FRCP41(a}(2).

ao [Other docket entry} ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Vinoy’s motion to

(il) w

transfer venue is denied.

[For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required.

Mail AO 450 form.

No notices required, advised in open court.
Notices mailed by judge's staff.
Notified counsel by telephone,

Docketing to mail notices,

‘Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

number of notiges

SEP 15 2003

"o

ID

sh

4UNOD LOH sr

courtroom
deputy’s

hogy
initials

pros)

Date/time received in

u rmaiting deputy itals

ii central Clerk’s Oitice

bru


available in Illinois for litigation, leaving the former
secretary as the sole witness weighing in favor of transferring
to the Middle District of Florida. This Court does not feel that
defendants have met their burden to establish that “the

transferee forum is clearly more convenient than the transferor

forum” by listing one possible witness in the Middle District of

Florida, Kennedy v. Miller, Johnson & Kuehn, Inc., 940 F. Supp.

207, 209 (N.D. Ill. 1996).
III. Interest of Justice

In addition to considering private interests of the parties
and witnesses, this Court must also evaluate the interests of
justice. These public interests include: (1) relation of the
community to the issue in the litigation; (2) the court’s
familiarity with the applicable law; and (3) the relative docket
congestion of the courts. Raddenbach, at *2.

Here it appears that there is no community with the
strongest connection to the issue litigated. The issue is breach
of contract--a contract which was formed in both Chicago,
Illinois and St. Petersburg, Florida. Further, the breach was
committed in Phoenix, Arizona, which militates against any
advantage Chicago or St. Petersburg would provide.

Next, the Note specifies that Florida law shall control any

claim brought by either party. This Court recognizes that the

Middle District of Florida is more familiar with substantive



determining this motion to transfer: (1) whether venue is proper
in both the transferor and transferee courts; (2) whether
transfer is for the convenience of parties and witnesses; and (3)
whether transfer is in the interest of justice. Id, It is
within the sole discretion of the judge to determine the weight

accorded to each factor. Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d

217, 219 (7th Cir, 1986).
rT. Venue in the Transferor and Transferee Courts

Here, federal jurisdiction is alleged solely on the basis of
diversity of citizenship. Therefore, venue is proper in a
judicial district: (1) where all plaintiffs or all defendants
reside; or (2) in which a substantial part of the events or
omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. 28 U.S.C. 1391 (a);

Midwest Precision Services Inc. v. PTM Industries Corp., 574 F.

Supp. 657, 659 (C.D, Ill. 1983).

For a corporation, venue is proper in its state of
incorporation, in any state which it is licensed to do business,
and in any state where it is doing business. 28 U.S.C. 1391(c).
The Trust, the sole plaintiff, is an Illinois trust with its
principal place of business in Illinois. Vinoy, the only
defendant, is a Florida corporation, with its principal place of
business in Phoenix, Arizona. The events giving rise to this
claim occurred in both Florida and Illinois. Therefore, venue is

proper in both the transferor court (Northern District of



terms of the Note required payments by Vinoy to the Trust
equaling $2,324,066.55 in principal and $13,556.70 in interest.
Monthly payments of $20,600 were due on the twenty-second day of
every month, beginning in January, 1998. Payments were to be
made to 16400 Gulf Blvd., Reddington Beach, Florida and were to
continue until December 22, 2002, when the balance of
$2,337,563.25 was due. The Note included an option for the Trust
to request in writing for payments to be made to a different
address, which the Trust took advantage of on several occasions.

Vinoy complied with the terms of the Note for all monthly
payments, except the December 22, 2002 final payment of
$2,337,563.25. On December 24, 2002, the Trust notified Vinoy in
writing, through its president in Phoenix, Arizona, that payment
was past due and that immediate payment was needed. However,
Vinoy did not tender payment to the Trust. Therefore, the Trust
filed this lawsuit for breach of contract in the Northern
District of Tllinois.

DISCUSSTON

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C, 1404(a), “for the convenience of
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.” Raddenbach v. Soo
Line R.R. Co., No. 99 C 2588, 1999 WL 984393, 1 (N.D. Ill. Oct.

25, 1999). Thus, there are three factors the Court must apply in


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

THE BETHINE W. ALBERDING
ESTATE ADMINISTRATION
TRUST, by C.T. Moore as

trustee, 03 c 1250

Plaintiff, Judge George M. Marovich

VINOY PARK HOTEL COMPANY,

a Florida Corporation

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Bethine W. Alberding Estate Administration Trust
(the “Trust”) filed a one-count complaint for breach of contract
against Vinoy Park Hotel Company (the “Vinoy”). The Trust
alleges breach of an Installment Note (the “Note”) and seeks to
recover damages. Vinoy filed a motion to transfer venue to the
Middle District of Florida. For the reasons set forth below, the
motion is denied.

BACKGROUND

The Trust is an Illinois trust, with its principal place of
business in Chicago, Illinois. Vinoy is a registered Florida
corporation with its principal place of business in Phoenix,
Arizona. On December 22, 1997, Vinoy and the Trust entered into

an agreement, which resulted in the execution of the Note. The

\