Defendant Must Demonstrate 'Exceptional Circumstances' to Disturb Plaintiff's Forum Choice

Defendant Must Demonstrate 'Exceptional Circumstances' to Disturb Plaintiff's Forum Choice

By: Jamie Johnson

In Albert v. F/V Misty Dawn, Inc., 950 F. Supp. 2d 321, both parties were residents of New Jersey. Further, medical documents and all of the witnesses were located in New Jersey as well. Despite this fact, the Massachusetts district court refused to transfer this action back to New Jersey based on defendant’s motion for forum non-conveniens.Plaintiff, Albert, was injured on the vessel F/V Misty Dawn as a result of a safety chain that failed, causing the steel towing block to sweep across the deck, striking him in his chest and abdomen. The plaintiff brought the case in Massachusetts alleging negligence, unseaworthiness and maintenance and cure.The defendant moved to have the case transferred to the district court in New Jersey on the basisof forum non-conveniens. Under FNC, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a), “a district court may transfer to any other district where it may have been brought ‘for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.’” The defendant argued that under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b), the case should be transferred to New Jersey, based on the provision that states, “a civil action may be brought in… a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of a state in which the district is located.” However, the Massachusetts district court said that the venue rules of 1391 were inapplicable to admiralty cases.Although the Plaintiff received medical care in New Jersey and the witnesses were located in New Jersey as well, the court noted that the block and safety chain were located in New Jersey as well as the vessel where the accident transpired. The court held that “there are no exceptional circumstances in this case that warrant disturbing plaintiff’s choice of forum.” As a result, the court denied defendant’s motion to transfer the case back to New Jersey.The court was also mindful of the defendant’s claim that Massachusetts was inconvenient considering that the defendant had litigated in that forum multiple times in the past.