950 F. Supp. 2d 321
D. Mass.2013Background
- Plaintiff William Albert, a New Jersey resident and seaman aboard the F/V Misty Dawn, alleges injuries from a whipping towing block that struck him on November 3, 2012.
- Defendant F/V Misty Dawn, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation with principal place of business in New Jersey, and the vessel operated out of New Bedford, Massachusetts for months before the incident.
- Plaintiff filed a three-count admiralty complaint (negligence, unseaworthiness, maintenance and cure) in the District of Massachusetts on January 23, 2013.
- Defendant moved to transfer the case to the District of New Jersey under forum non conveniens / 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), arguing improper venue and inconvenience.
- Plaintiff emphasized key evidence and witnesses in Massachusetts and Rhode Island: the block and chain are stowed in Fairhaven, the vessel fishes out of Massachusetts ports, first responders were from New Bedford, and significant medical treatment occurred in Rhode Island.
- The District Court analyzed venue and convenience factors under admiralty principles and § 1404(a), giving weight to plaintiff’s forum choice and witness convenience.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue in D. Mass. is proper in this admiralty action | Venue is proper because substantial events (departure, maintenance, location of block, New Bedford responders) occurred in Massachusetts | Venue belongs in New Jersey because defendant and most witnesses and business ties are in New Jersey | Venue proper in Massachusetts; admiralty venue governed by personal jurisdiction and Massachusetts has sufficient contacts |
| Whether the case should be transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for convenience | Transfer unnecessary; key evidence/witnesses and the vessel have strong ties to Massachusetts; medical witnesses in RI are closer to MA | Transfer warranted because majority of documents, evidence, and witnesses are in New Jersey making MA inconvenient | Transfer denied; plaintiff’s forum choice entitled to substantial weight and no exceptional circumstances shown |
| Relevance of § 1391 venue rules to admiralty cases | N/A — plaintiff relied on admiralty venue principles and facts showing MA contacts | Argued § 1391(b) does not support venue in MA | Court held § 1391 inapplicable to admiralty; venue lies where personal jurisdiction exists, but even under § 1391 MA would qualify |
| Weight of witness convenience and defendant’s litigation history | Witnesses fish out of New Bedford seasonally; MA witnesses (first responders, RI medical staff) make MA convenient | All accident witnesses reside in NJ making NJ more convenient | Witness convenience favored MA; defendant has litigated in MA before; plaintiff’s choice stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (considerations for transfer under § 1404(a))
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (plaintiff’s choice of forum given substantial deference)
- Uffner v. La Reunion Francaise, S. A., 244 F.3d 38 (look to entire sequence of events for § 1391(b)(2))
- Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706 (factors to consider under § 1404(a))
- Mercier v. Sheraton Int’l, Inc., 935 F.2d 419 (weight of plaintiff’s forum choice in transfer analysis)
- Boateng v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 460 F. Supp. 2d 270 (witness convenience as a key factor)
- Coady v. Ashcraft & Gerel, 223 F.3d 1 (presumption in favor of plaintiff’s chosen forum)
- McCarthy v. Canadian Nat’l Ry., 322 F. Supp. 1197 (forum non conveniens dismissal where no meaningful ties to forum)