is assumed that the Ochoa minor plaintiffs and the Espino plaintiffs reside in this district, the defendants' motion to transfer should be granted based on the other considerations under Section 1404(a).
B. Convenience of the Parties and the Witnesses
First, the convenience of witnesses and other parties strongly favors transfer. The investigating police officers, the physicians or other medical personnel, and any eyewitnesses or post-occurrence witnesses are residents of Texas and not amenable to process to compel their attendance at a trial in this district. These witnesses, however, are available to testify in Texas as to their investigation and conclusions regarding the accident and to the immediate post-accident medical examination of the decedent plaintiff. Similarly, although they do not reside in Texas, the co-guardians of the minor Ochoa plaintiffs reside in Mexico, which is much closer to Texas than to Illinois. Finally, both the operator of the truck involved and the corporate defendant which owns the truck are residents of California. Thus, at the very least, the defendants will be equally inconvenienced whether this case is tried in Texas or in Illinois and, arguably, they will be less inconvenienced if this case is tried in Texas. Consequently, the balance of convenience strongly weighs in favor of transfer.
C. Interest of Justice
The transfer of this case to Texas will also promote the interest of justice. This final component of Section 1404(a) focuses on the efficient administration of the court system, rather than the private considerations of the litigants. See Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217, 221 (7th Cir. 1986); Peach Tree Corp. v. Peach Tree Network, Inc., 706 F. Supp. 639, 641 (N.D.Ill. 1989); Karrels v. Adolph Coors Co., 699 F. Supp. 172, 177 (N.D.Ill. 1988); Bally Manufacturing Co. v. Kane, 698 F. Supp. 734, 739 (N.D.Ill. 1988).
In this case, several important considerations encompassed under the interest of justice rubric favor transfer. First, a diversity case should be decided by a court which is most conversant with the applicable state law. In this case, Texas is the situs of the accident and, therefore, Texas law applies. See Edwardsville National Bank v. Marion Laboratories, Inc., 808 F.2d 648, 651 (7th Cir. 1987) (interpreting Illinois conflicts law). Naturally, the district court in Texas is more conversant with Texas law than this Court is.
Second, the events underlying the Texas accident bear little, if any, connection with this forum. If Texas counsel is correct and the Ochoa minor plaintiffs reside in Mexico, then the only remaining connection with this district is the residence here of the Espino plaintiffs. That connection, when balanced against the other factors favoring litigation in Texas, is simply not sufficient to defeat the motion to transfer. If, on the other hand, Illinois counsel is correct and the Ochoa minor plaintiffs reside in this district, the net effect is the same. The fact that plaintiffs reside here, without more, does not outweigh the other factors favoring transfer.
Third, transfer of this case would likely result in conservation of judicial resources. This suit and the earlier filed Texas suit arise out of the same accident in Texas and involve many of the same parties. It makes far more sense to consolidate and streamline the two suits in Texas than to litigate them piecemeal.
The final factor weighing in favor of transfer is the likelihood of an earlier trial and resolution of this matter in the transferee forum. See Coffey, 796 F.2d at 221. In this case, we note that the Northern District of Illinois consistently ranks near the top of the most congested district courts nationally. See Karrels, 699 F. Supp. at 177; Letter-Rite, Inc. v. Computer Talk, Inc., 605 F. Supp. 717, 722 (N.D.Ill. 1985). Thus, this factor also weighs in favor of transfer.
For the reasons stated in this opinion, defendants' motion to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division, is granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 9, 1989
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.