The opinion of the court was delivered by: Alesia, District Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Amoco Oil Company ("Amoco") brings this diversity
action against the defendant Mobil Oil Corporation ("Mobil").
Amoco is a business incorporated under the laws of Maryland with
its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. Mobil is a
business incorporated under the laws of New York with its
principal place of business in Fairfax, Virginia.
This action allegedly arises out of a settlement agreement
entered into on May 6, 1993 between Amoco and Mobil. Pursuant to
this settlement agreement, Mobil released Amoco from any claims
relating to environmental contamination in the Greenpoint area of
Brooklyn, New York and agreed to indemnify Amoco for certain
aspects of the contamination in the Greenpoint area. Amoco,
however, remained responsible for removing any contamination from
its own property excluding contamination which was not physically
located under Amoco's property at the time of the settlement
agreement. The purpose of this settlement agreement is "to fully
resolve all existing disagreements over responsibility and
allocate liability for environmental contamination (including,
among other things, third party personal injury and property
damage claims) between Amoco and Mobil in connection with . . .
the Greenpoint Contamination." (Pl.'s Compl. Ex. 1 at 2.)
Subsequent to this settlement agreement, Amoco recovered over
two million gallons of liquid phase contamination from the
subsurface of its property.*fn2 Testing of the groundwater
revealed that the contamination is migrating onto Amoco's
property from Mobil's Greenpoint property. As a consequence of
this migration, the New York State Department of Environmental
Contamination ("NYSDEC") advised Amoco that it is considering an
enforcement action against Amoco unless Amoco extends its
remediation efforts. This extension would include the
installation of pump and treat systems which would draw more
pollution onto Amoco's property from Mobil's property.
Thus, Amoco advised Mobil that any remediation efforts sought
by NYSDEC were subject to the indemnity provision in the
settlement agreement. However, Mobil denies that it would have
any obligation with respect to Amoco's remediation efforts.
Accordingly, on September 3, 1999, Amoco filed this action
charging Mobil with violating the settlement agreement as to the
property located in the Greenpoint area of Brooklyn, New York.
The complaint consists of two counts. Count I is for a
declaratory judgment and Count II alleges a breach of the
Amoco requests this court to retain jurisdiction of this case.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court may transfer a
civil action "[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses
[and] in the interest of justice . . . to any other district or
division where it might have been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Transfer is appropriate under § 1404(a) where: (1) venue is
proper in the transferor district; (2) venue and jurisdiction are
proper in the transferee district; and (3) the transfer will
serve the convenience of the parties and the witnesses and will
promote the interest of justice. See id; Coffey v. Van
Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217, 219 & n. 3 (7th Cir. 1986). It
is in the sound discretion of the trial judge to determine the
weight accorded to each factor. See Coffey, 796 F.2d at 219.
A. Venue in the transferor district, the Northern District of
Venue is proper in this district because jurisdiction is
predicated solely on diversity of citizenship and Mobil does not
dispute that this court has personal jurisdiction over it. Title
28 of the United States Code § 1391(a) provides that:
A civil action wherein jurisdiction is founded only
on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise
provided by law, be brought only in (1) a judicial
district where any defendant resides, if all
defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial
district in which a substantial part of the events or
omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a
substantial part of property that is the subject of
the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in
which any defendant is subject to personal
jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, if
there is no district in which the action may
otherwise be brought.
28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). For purposes of venue, "a defendant that is
a corporation shall be deemed to reside in any judicial district
in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the
action is commenced." Id. § 1391(c). Mobil, the only defendant,
does not dispute that this court has personal jurisdiction over
it, thus, venue is ...