New York District Court Defines Legal Standard to Transfer Venue Under its Admiralty Jurisdiction

Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. Ocean Reef Charters LLC, 6:17-CV-06670 EAW, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149247 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2018), 6:17-CV-06670 EAW, 2018 WL 4178267, (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2018).

By: Keith Accardo

The United States District Court for the Western District of New York granted both Ocean Reef Charter’s and Centennial’s motion to transfer venue to the Southern District of Florida, though the suit filed against them by Travelers Property Casualty Company of America’s was designated as an admiralty and maritime claim under the Rule 9(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Travelers brought a declaratory judgment action to clarify its rights and obligations under the marine insurance policy it issued to Ocean Reef covering one of Ocean Reef’s yachts and to Centennial as a “loss payee” under the policy. Ocean Reef and Centennial then filed separate motions to transfer venue based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); and in the alternative Centennial sought to be dismissed from the case based upon lack of personal jurisdiction.The court noted that Travelers’ claim fell its admiralty jurisdiction. However, the claim was also within the scope of its subject matter jurisdiction. Nevertheless, because the claim was designated as an admiralty claim in Traveler’s pleadings, it was subject to the special admiralty procedures and remedies. The court also noted that although the venue rules that apply to normal civil actions do not ordinarily apply to designated admiralty claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1391 gives district courts the authority to transfer admiralty actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1401(a).In its determination to transfer venue, the judge considered a two part test pursuant to §1404, which examines: (1) if the action to be transferred might have been brought in the transferee court and (2) when considering “convenience of the parties and witnesses” and the “interest of justice” with the burden of justifying proper transfer falling on the moving party.All parties agreed that the action could have been brought in the Southern District of Florida, thus satisfying the first part of the test. Therefore, the court only needed to examine the second part of the test, in which the Western District of New York considered nine factors: (1) convenience of the witnesses, (2) convenience of the parties, (3) the location of relevant documents and the relative ease of access to sources of proof, (4) locus of the operative facts, (5) availability of process to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses, (6) the relative means of the parties, (7) the forum’s familiarity with governing law, (8) the weight accorded to plaintiff’s choice of forum, and (9) trial efficiency and the interest of justice based on the totality of the circumstances.In assessing the first factor, the court found that Ocean Reef identified numerous nonparty witnesses familiar with the case who resided in Florida, but Plaintiff did not identify any nonparty witnesses with connections to New York. Therefore, the first factor weighed in favor of transfer. In examining the convenience of the parties, the court found this factor to be neutral even though at the time the action was brought, Ocean Reef’s principal place of business was in New York: the court questioned “whether it is anymore convenient for Plaintiff to litigate this case in this District than in the Southern District of Florida given the conveniences of modern air travel.” In assessing the third factor, the judge found it to oppose transfer because Defendants failed to establish that relevant documents and evidence could not be easily delivered or accessible in the Western District of New York. The locus of operative facts, the fourth factor, weighed in favor of transfer because the court determined there was no “material connection between the district and operative facts” when the majority of events revolving around this action had a greater connection to Florida than New York.  The court found the fifth factor to be neutral due to a lack of information pursuant to Plaintiff’s witnesses as well as no indication that Ocean Reef’s nonparty witnesses would be reluctant to testify in the Western District of New York. The sixth factor was also found to be neutral because neither party demonstrated a substantial disparity in means, which would impede them to litigate in either forum. The court examined the seventh factor by looking to federal choice of law rules, which examine contact points between the transaction and states whose laws may be involved. In this examination it determined Florida had more relevant contacts than New York, thus weighing in favor of transfer. Although a plaintiff’s choice of venue should not be altered unless the other factors heavily weigh in favor of transfer, the Court found the eighth factor did weigh in favor of transfer because operative facts pursuant to the action occurred in numerous places other than New York. The final factor, considering the totality of the circumstances, supported transfer to the Southern District of Florida by acknowledging majority of the events surrounding the action as well as witnesses who could provide relevant testimony were in Florida.In consideration of all of these factors, the Court ultimately granted the motion to transfer to the Southern District of Florida. Additionally, because transfer was proper in this situation, the Court did not consider Centennial’s alternative motion to dismiss. 

1. R. Civ. P. 9(h)
2. 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (2018)
3. 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (2018)
4. 28 U.S.C. § 1401 (2018)