Morrissey v. Subaru of America, Inc.
8:16-cv-00048
M.D. Fla.Dec 31, 2015Background
- Plaintiffs George and Amalia Morrissey sued Subaru of America, Fuji Heavy Industries, and Bird Road Motors after a 2006 Subaru Forester allegedly experienced sudden acceleration in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, causing severe injury to Amalia.
- Claims: negligent design/manufacture, negligent failure to warn, strict liability, breach of warranty, negligence per se, and loss of consortium; compensatory and punitive damages sought.
- Plaintiffs previously filed a virtually identical suit in the District of the Virgin Islands; that court dismissed Subaru for lack of personal jurisdiction and Fuji remains in that action, which has a pending transfer motion.
- Subaru moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the Southern District of Florida case to the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division; Plaintiffs opposed.
- The court found Tampa proper because Plaintiffs now reside in Riverview (within the Tampa Division), most identified witnesses and medical treatment locations are in the Middle District, many potential witnesses could not be compelled to testify in Miami under Rule 45, and other convenience and interest-of-justice factors favored transfer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case should be transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) | Morrisseys argued venue in S.D. Fla. should remain | Subaru argued Middle District, Tampa is clearly more convenient | Granted: case transferred to Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division |
| Weight to give plaintiff's choice of forum | Morrisseys relied on their chosen forum (S.D. Fla.) | Subaru noted plaintiffs are not in their home forum and have minimal deference | Court gave minimal deference because plaintiffs' home forum is elsewhere |
| Convenience of witnesses (including subpoena power) | Plaintiffs did not dispute many witnesses are in Tampa but opposed transfer | Subaru argued majority of witnesses and medical providers are in the Middle District and beyond Rule 45 reach for Miami | Convenience of witnesses strongly favored transfer; many witnesses could not be compelled to Miami |
| Forum interest and jury burden | Plaintiffs emphasized any local contacts (Bird Road Motors, some treatment in Miami) | Subaru argued Middle District has greater ties (plaintiffs' residence, medical care) and S.D. Fla. has minimal relation | Middle District's interest greater; imposing jury duty on S.D. Fla. community was unfair |
Key Cases Cited
- Manuel v. Convergys Corp., 430 F.3d 1132 (11th Cir. 2005) (lists factors for Section 1404(a) transfer analysis)
- Alltel Corp. v. Cellularvision Tech. & Telecomms, L.P., 508 F. Supp. 2d 1186 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (discusses trial court discretion in transfer decisions)
- Robinson v. Giarmarco & Bill, P.C., 74 F.3d 253 (11th Cir. 1996) (plaintiff's forum choice ordinarily given deference)
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1981) (less deference when plaintiff chooses a non‑home forum)
- Ford v. Brown, 319 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2003) (jury duty should not be imposed on a community with no relation to litigation)
- Thermal Techs., Inc. v. Dade Serv. Corp., 282 F. Supp. 2d 1373 (S.D. Fla. 2003) (considers docket congestion in transfer analysis)
- Am. Aircraft Sales Int’l, Inc. v. Airwarsaw, Inc., 55 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (M.D. Fla. 1999) (convenience best served when witnesses testify where they reside)