Opinion ID: 768599
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Transfer of Venue under S 1404(a)

Text: 12 GNC also claims error in the district court's denial of its motion to transfer venue to the Western District of Pennsylvania under the provisions of S 1404(a). We review that order for abuse of discretion. 16 13 Under S 1404(a), the district court has discretion to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an`individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.'  17 A motion to transfer venue under S 1404(a) requires the court to weigh multiple factors in its determination whether transfer is appropriate in a particular case. 18 For example, the court may consider: (1) the location where the relevant agreements were negotiated and executed, (2) the state that is most familiar with the governing law, (3) the plaintiff's choice of forum, (4) the respective parties' contacts with the forum, (5) the contacts relating to the plaintiff's cause of action in the chosen forum, (6) the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums, (7) the availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling nonparty witnesses, and (8) the ease of access to sources of proof. 19 Additionally, the presence of a forum selection clause is a significant factor in the court's S 1404(a) analysis. 20 We also conclude that the relevant public policy of the forum state, if any, is at least as significant a factor in the S 1404(a) balancing. 21 14 The district court weighed each of the aforementioned factors and concluded that GNC failed to meet its burden of showing that Pennsylvania was the more appropriate forum for the action. 22 Although the forum selection clause designates Pennsylvania as the exclusive forum, the court determined that other factors clearly demonstrated that California was more appropriate. For example, the court found that the vast majority of the other agreements underlying Jones' claims were negotiated and executed in California. The court noted that Jones chose California as the forum for his lawsuit, and his choice is supported by California's strong public policy to provide a protective local forum for local franchisees. The court further found that the extent of the parties' contacts with Pennsylvania and California clearly favored California, and that Jones' claims arose out of the construction and initial operation of the store located in LaVerne, California. The court also concluded that the relative financial burdens of litigating in each of the forums favored California. Finally, the court noted that more of the relevant witnesses and other sources of proof were located in California. Review of the relevant law and record on appeal persuades us that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to transfer venue under S 1404(a). 15 The judgment appealed is, in all respects, AFFIRMED.