The opinion of the court was delivered by: ALESIA
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Court's motion to transfer this matter to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Hauppauge Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
This case arose as a result of the explosion and crash of Trans World Airlines, Inc. ("TWA"), flight number 800 on July 17, 1996. The accident occurred over the ocean near East Moriches, Long Island, New York. Susan Hill was a passenger on that flight. There were no survivors.
On November 18, 1996, Plaintiff Mary Ellen Houck, as personal representative of the Estate of Hill, filed a sixteen-count complaint against Defendants TWA, The Boeing Company ("Boeing"), and Hydroaire, Inc. ("Hydroaire"), in this Court. Against TWA, Houck brings a wrongful death and survival action premised on both negligence (counts I and II) and willful and wanton conduct (counts III and IV). Against Boeing, Houck brings a wrongful death and survival action premised on strict liability (counts V and VI), negligence (counts VII and VIII), and breach of warranty (counts IX and X). Finally, against Hydroaire, Houck brings a wrongful death and survival action premised on strict liability (counts XI and XII), negligence (counts XIII and XIV), and breach of warranty (counts XV and XVI).
Houck is a citizen of the state of Oregon. Hill, at the time of her death, was also a citizen of the state of Oregon. TWA is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Missouri; Boeing is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Washington; Hydroaire is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Connecticut. The only "connection" Defendants have with the state of Illinois is that each maintains a registered agent in Cook County and each "does business" here.
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.
A transfer under § 1404(a) is appropriate if: (1) venue is proper in both the transferor and transferee court; (2) transfer is for the convenience of the parties and witnesses; and (3) transfer is in the interests of justice. Vandeveld v. Christoph, 877 F. Supp. 1160, 1167 (N.D. Ill. 1995). "The weighing of factors for and against transfer necessarily involves a large degree of subtlety and latitude, and therefore, is committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge." Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217, 219 (7th Cir. 1986).
Here, venue is proper in both the Northern District of Illinois (the transferee court) and the Eastern District of New York (the transferee court), see 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(1) and (2), (c).
B. Convenience of Parties and Witnesses
When evaluating the convenience of the parties and witnesses, the court considers: (1) the plaintiff's choice of forum; (2) the site of material events; (3) the availability of evidence in each forum; and (4) the convenience to the parties of litigating in the respective forums. ...