Dariz v. Republic Airline Inc.
377 F. Supp. 3d 499
| E.D. Pa. | 2019Background
- Plaintiff Hansjoerg Dariz, a New Jersey resident over 40, was hired by Republic Airways as a First Officer Trainee after interviews in Philadelphia and training at Republic’s Indianapolis headquarters.
- During training in Indiana, Dariz was terminated abruptly in front of classmates; he alleges ADEA age discrimination and IIED caused by the termination.
- Dariz filed suit in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas; Republic removed to federal court and moved to transfer venue to the Southern District of Indiana under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
- The parties agreed the case could have been brought in Indiana (Republic’s headquarters), so the dispute concerned whether private and public interest factors weigh in favor of transfer.
- The court evaluated Jumara private and public interest factors (plaintiff’s forum choice, witness convenience, location of evidence, local interest, court congestion, etc.) and denied Republic’s motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Threshold: Could case be brought in SDIN? | N/A — plaintiff sued in EDPA. | Agreed case could be brought in SDIN (headquarters located there). | Yes; parties agree venue proper in SDIN. |
| Private-interest factors under §1404(a) | Dariz prefers EDPA (near home); evidence can be produced in either forum; transfer would shift burden to plaintiff. | Many witnesses and central events occurred in Indiana; former-employee witnesses may be beyond EDPA subpoena power. | Private factors do not favor transfer; plaintiff’s forum choice and defendant’s ability to produce witnesses lessen weight of defendant’s arguments. |
| Public-interest factors under §1404(a) | ADEA claim is federal so many public factors are neutral; plaintiff expected to be based in Philadelphia; court congestion disfavors transfer. | Local interest in SDIN because events occurred there; fewer new filings in SDIN may favor transfer. | Public factors are neutral or slightly favor EDPA; overall do not support transfer. |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (U.S. 1964) (purpose of §1404(a) is to prevent waste and unnecessary inconvenience)
- Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873 (3d Cir. 1995) (sets Jumara private and public interest-factor framework for transfer analysis)
- Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp., 431 F.2d 22 (3d Cir. 1970) (plaintiff’s choice of forum is paramount and should not be lightly disturbed)
- Plum Tree, Inc. v. Stockment, 488 F.2d 754 (3d Cir. 1973) (addressing transfer considerations and inconvenience analysis)
- Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (U.S. 1988) (clarifies deference to plaintiff’s forum choice in transfer motions)
- In re Howmedica Osteonics Corp., 867 F.3d 390 (3d Cir. 2017) (public interest factors derive from the interest of justice)