Shiloah v. Geico Indemnity Company
6:24-cv-06447
W.D.N.Y.Mar 11, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Renata Shiloah resides in Nassau County, NY, and brings this class action against GEICO for breach of contract.
- The claim arises from GEICO's alleged failure to pay full "Actual Cash Value," specifically sales tax, after Plaintiff's leased vehicle was totaled and declared a loss.
- Plaintiff claims a uniform, state-wide GEICO policy systematically underpaid thousands of putative class members in similar total loss situations.
- Plaintiff filed in the Western District of New York, where a related case against GEICO (Marcelletti) was already pending, involving overlapping claims and parties.
- GEICO moved to transfer the case to the Eastern District of New York, arguing that all relevant events and witnesses are located there and the matter is unconnected to the Western District.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to transfer venue under § 1404(a) | Keeping the case in the Western District promotes efficiency and avoids duplicate litigation, given the related Marcelletti action. | All relevant parties/witnesses/events are in the Eastern District; the case lacks ties to the Western District. | No transfer; related case supports retention, and other factors are neutral. |
| Weight of Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum | Chose this forum for judicial economy and efficiency due to the related Marcelletti action. | Plaintiff doesn’t reside in the district—little weight should be given. | Entitled to some, but not substantial, weight due to class action context. |
| Convenience of Witnesses | No non-party witnesses identified as inconvenienced; Defendant’s showing is speculative. | Defendant points to an adjuster as a “relevant witness.” | Factor is neutral; no clear, convincing case that key witnesses are inconvenienced. |
| Judicial Economy and Interests of Justice | Keeping related cases in one forum avoids waste and duplication. | Plaintiff is forum shopping. | Judicial economy strongly disfavors transfer, not impermissible forum shopping. |
Key Cases Cited
- D.H. Blair & Co., Inc. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2006) (articulates general factors guiding venue transfer considerations)
- N.Y. Marine & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 599 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2010) (sets forth factors and burden for motions to transfer venue)
- In re Warrick, 70 F.3d 736 (2d Cir. 1995) (explains the diminished weight of forum choice in class actions)
- Cont’l Grain Co. v. The FBL-585, 364 U.S. 19 (1960) (judicial economy supports litigating related actions in a single forum)