Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Holtec International v. Pandjiris, Inc.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

April 4, 2017

HOLTEC INTERNATIONAL, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
PANDJIRIS, INC., et al., Defendants.

          Matthew Benjamin Weisberg, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiffs Holtec International and Holtec Manufacturing Division, Inc.

          Louis Smith, Esq. Attorney for Defendant Pandjiris, Inc.

          Thomas K. Richards, Esq. Attorney for Defendant Arc Machines, Inc.

          OPINION

          RENÉE MARIE BUMB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter comes before the Court upon its Order to Show Cause as to why this matter should not be transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania [Docket No. 17].

         On January 20, 2017, Plaintiffs Holtec International and Holtec Manufacturing Division, Inc. (“Plaintiffs” or “Holtec”) filed the instant action against Defendants Pandjiris, Inc. (“Pandjiris”) and Arc Machines, Inc. (“AMI” and, together with Pandjiris, the “Defendants”) [Docket No. 1]. Subsequently, Defendants submitted pre-motion letters, in accordance with this Court's Individual Rules and Procedures, in which Defendants set forth their intentions to file motions to dismiss on the basis of lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and an arbitration clause [Docket Nos. 14, 15]. In light of Plaintiffs' allegations and Defendants' representations in their respective letters to the Court, on March 20, 2017, the Court gave the parties notice and issued an Order to Show Cause, directing the parties to address, inter alia, whether this action should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) [Docket No. 17]. The Court has reviewed the parties' responses to the Order to Show Cause and notes that Defendants do not oppose transfer to the Western District of Pennsylvania [Docket Nos. 19, 20]. Plaintiffs' submission is not responsive to the question of transfer [Docket No. 18]. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court will transfer this action.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiffs Holtec International and Holtec Manufacturing Division, Inc., New Jersey and Pennsylvania citizens respectively, brought this action against Defendant Pandjiris, a Missouri citizen, and Defendant AMI, a California citizen, setting forth three counts: “Breach of Contract/Quasi-Contact/ Unjust Enrichment/Promissory Estoppel” (Count I); Third-Party Beneficiary (Count II); and “U.C.C.” (Count III).

         Around June 2012, Plaintiffs purchased two welding manipulators from Pandjiris for approximately $709, 260.00, which were to be installed at Holtec's manufacturing facility in Turtle Creek, Pennsylvania. Compl. ¶ 8 [Docket No. 1]. The terms of the purchase included a warranty that the manipulators would be free from defects for a period of 12 months or 2, 000 hours of operation. Compl. ¶ 10. Thereafter, Pandjiris ordered the equipment through a subcontractor, AMI. Compl. ¶ 11.

         Around January 2013, Pandjiris shipped the manipulators to Holtec's Turtle Creek facility, where they were installed. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants supervised “the installation and provided technical assistance.” Compl. ¶ 12. According to the Complaint, “Holtec experienced continuous problems with the welding manipulators causing months of delays - and severe financial cost to Holtec.” Compl. ¶ 13. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants were unable to properly identify or fix the problems with the equipment. Compl. ¶ 16. The Complaint alleges that AMI sent Holtec a price quote for the repairs “because AMI contended the damage was no longer under warranty” and that Holtec then demanded a refund on the purchase price of the manipulators. Compl. ¶¶ 18-19. After failed discussions with Defendants, Plaintiffs filed the instant action seeking to recover for damages allegedly caused by Defendants' failure to refund and/or repair the manipulators, “including the purchase price of about $709, 260.00 for the manipulators which never operated properly, approximately $120, 000 in labor expenses, loss of production, and about $780, 000 to replace the faulty equipment.” Compl. ¶ 24 (emphasis in original).

         II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

         Section 1404(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code provides that: “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.” The parties do not appear to genuinely dispute that this action could have been filed in the Western District of Pennsylvania, where the operative facts underlying the claims occurred, where the equipment in question is located, where the contracts at issue were performed, and where Plaintiffs have a manufacturing facility.

         “If the proposed alternative forum is appropriate, ” as it is here, “it is then within the Court's discretion to transfer the action.” Taylor v. Global Credit & Collection Corp., 2010 WL 2521758, at *1 (D.N.J. June 14, 2010) (citing Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 883 (3d Cir. 1995)). Indeed, “Section 1404(a) is intended to place discretion in the district court to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an ‘individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.'” Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622 (1964)). “A determination that transfer to another jurisdiction is appropriate represents an ‘exercise . . . of structured discretion by trial judges appraising the practical inconveniences posed to the litigants and the court should a particular action be litigated in one forum rather than another.'” Lawrence v. Xerox Corp., 56 F.Supp.2d 442, 450 (D.N.J. 1999) (quoting Ricoh Co. v. Honeywell, Inc., 817 F.Supp. 473, 479 (D.N.J. 1993) (quoting Liny v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 886 F.2d 628, 632 (3d Cir. 1989))). Thus, the district court “is vested with a large discretion” to determine when transfer should be ordered “for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, ” pursuant to Section 1404(a). Solomon v. Continental Am. Life Ins. Co., 472 F.2d 1043, 1045 (3d Cir. 1973).

         In deciding whether to transfer an action under Section 1404(a), courts in the Third Circuit consider both private and public interests, as delineated in Jumara v. StateFarm Insurance, 55 F.3d 873, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.