MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
JAMES H. ALESIA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiffs, CNA Financial Corporation and Continental Casualty Company (collectively, "CNA"), filed an action for a declaratory judgment on a claim made by CNA under a blanket bond issued by The Home Indemnity Company ("Home"). This action was originally filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, as case No. 88 CH 8786, and was removed to this Court on October 20, 1988. On November 3, 1988, by agreement of the parties, an order was entered extending the time for filing a responsive pleading until November 23, 1988. Home thereafter filed a motion to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). For the reasons set forth herein, the declaratory judgment action of CNA is dismissed on the Court's own motion and Home's motion to transfer is denied as moot.
This action arose out of a dispute between the parties over CNA's alleged loss of $ 336,723.47 as a result of an embezzlement by one of its employees in its New York City office. Home's bond obligates Home to reimburse CNA for this loss. This loss was but one of several embezzlement losses CNA has sustained within the past few years in its New York office.
On December 13, 1988, approximately two months after CNA's declaratory judgment action was removed to this Court, Home filed suit against CNA in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking to recover a $ 5,000,000 payment Home made under the bond as a result of CNA's losses from embezzlement. See Home Indemnity Company v. CNA Financial Corporation and Continental Casualty Company, No. 88 Civ. 8801 (Sprizzo, J.).
A cursory review of the motion to transfer and supporting memorandum of law tends to substantiate Home's position that a transfer of this case is warranted based on considerations of venue, the convenience of parties and witnesses, and the interests of justice under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). See Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217, 219 (7th Cir. 1986); Bally Mfg. Corp. v. Kane, 698 F. Supp. 734 (N.D. Ill. 1988).
A more fundamental question, however, is whether this Court should decline to hear CNA's declaratory judgment action. Indeed, it is well settled that federal courts have discretion to decline to entertain a declaratory judgment action. Tempco Elec. Heater Corp. v. Omega Engineering, Inc., 819 F.2d 746, 747 (7th Cir. 1987). In declining to entertain a declaratory judgment action filed under similar circumstances, the court in Tempco focused on the underlying purposes of a declaratory judgment action:
The purposes of declaratory judgments are to 'clarify and settle the legal relations at issue' and to 'terminate and afford relief from the uncertainty, insecurity and controversy giving rise to the proceeding.'