Missong Management, LLC v. Carmel of Jesus, Mary and Joseph in Elysburg, PA, Inc.
4:22-cv-01723-MWB
| M.D. Penn. | Oct 31, 2022Background
- Missong Management, LLC (a Wyoming plaintiff) sued Carmel of Jesus, Mary and Joseph in Elysburg, PA, Inc. (the seller) in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for breach of a sale agreement for the Monastery Property in Northumberland County (Middle District of PA).
- Sale price was $900,000; settlement was scheduled for August 8, 2022; plaintiff alleges the seller refused to complete settlement.
- Plaintiff filed in the Eastern District, alleging venue proper because settlement documents were sent to First Platinum Abstract (Bucks County, Eastern District) where nuns intercepted the package, constituting the breach location.
- Defendant moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, transfer to the Middle District under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), arguing the property, defendant’s business, witnesses, and documents are in the Middle District.
- The Court found the case could have been brought in the Middle District, gave reduced deference to plaintiff’s out-of-district forum choice, concluded the operative facts arose primarily in the Middle District, and granted transfer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue should be transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) | Breach occurred in Eastern District (interception at First Platinum); venue proper here | Most operative events, the property, witnesses, and documents are in Middle District; transfer more convenient | Transfer granted to Middle District; §1404(a) factors favor transfer |
| Deference to plaintiff's forum choice | Plaintiff's chosen forum should be honored | Plaintiff is out-of-state; choice gets less weight | Plaintiff’s forum choice given reduced deference and overcome |
| Where the claim "arose" for venue purposes | Breach occurred at Eastern settlement site | Negotiation, execution, mailing, and seller’s decision occurred in Middle District | Claim arose primarily in Middle District |
| Convenience of parties/witnesses and public-interest factors | Key witnesses and settlement activity are in Eastern | Key witnesses, documents, and local interest (real property) are in Middle District | Convenience and local public-interest factors favor Middle District |
Key Cases Cited
- Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873 (3d Cir. 1995) (§1404(a) analysis requires balancing private and public interest factors)
- Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (U.S. 1988) (trial-court discretion in venue-transfer decisions)
- Am. Littoral Soc. v. U.S. E.P.A., 943 F. Supp. 548 (E.D. Pa. 1996) (statutory transfer factors summarized)
- SKF USA Inc. v. Okkerse, 992 F. Supp. 2d 432 (E.D. Pa. 2014) (transfer prerequisites under §1404(a))
- Dariz v. Republic Airline Inc., 377 F. Supp. 3d 499 (E.D. Pa. 2019) (burden on movant and deference to plaintiff's forum choice explained)
- Ferratex, Inc. v. U.S. Sewer & Drain, Inc., 121 F. Supp. 3d 432 (D.N.J. 2015) (factors for where breach/contract arose)
- In re Howmedica Osteonics Corp., 867 F.3d 390 (3d Cir. 2017) (public-interest factors derive from the interest of justice)