United States District Court, D. New Jersey
CHERI A. FOSTER, Plaintiff
MARRIOTT RESORT HOSPITALITY CORPORATION, GRANDE VISTA OF ORLANDO CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., MARRIOTT VACATIONS WORLDWIDE CORPORATION, MARRIOTT VACATION CLUB INTERNATIONAL, Defendants.
RICHARD GRUNCO, JR., GRUNCO COLARULO, On behalf of Plaintiff.
CATHLEEN KELLY REBAR, JEANNIE PARK LEE, REBAR BERNSTIEL, On
behalf of Defendants.
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
before the Court is Defendants' motion to transfer the
venue of Plaintiff's case to Florida. For the reasons
expressed below, Defendants' motion will be granted.
Cheri Foster, sustained injuries from a slip and fall on
March 24, 2016, at the Marriott Grande Vista, a hotel owned
by Defendant Marriott Resort Hospitality Corporation and
located at 5925 Avenida Vista, Orlando, Florida. As a result
of the fall, Plaintiff suffered comminuted fractures of the
right tibia and fibula. These injuries required open reduction
surgery resulting in external fixation of the fractures with
a rod, a plate, and screws. Plaintiff claims that dangerous
conditions on the walkway of the hotel caused her fall.
commenced this action on December 11, 2017, in this
Court. Defendant Marriott seeks to transfer venue
to the United State District Court for the Middle District of
Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Plaintiff
opposes Defendant's motion.
Standard for Jurisdiction
Second Amended Complaint states that this Court has diversity
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because
Plaintiff's claims are in excess of $75, 000 and complete
diversity of citizenship exists between the parties.
Plaintiff is a citizen of New Jersey, and Defendant is a
South Carolina corporation with its principal place of
business in Florida.
Standard for Motion to Transfer Venue
1404(a) states that “[f]or 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 or to any district
or division to which all parties have consented.” 28
U.S.C. § 1404(a). Analysis of whether a transfer is
appropriate under § 1404(a) is flexible, and based on
the unique facts of the case. Ricoh Co. v. Honeywell,
Inc., 817 F.Supp. 473, 479 (D.N.J. 1993).
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has provided interest
factors, both public and private, for a court to consider
when undertaking analysis of whether to transfer under §
1404(a). Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873,
879 (3d Cir. 1995). The private interest factors are: (1) the
plaintiff's forum preference; (2) the defendant's
forum preference; (3) where the claim arose; (4) the
convenience of the parties; (5) the convenience of the
witnesses; and (6) the location of books and records.
public interest factors are: (1) the enforceability of the
judgment; (2) practical considerations that could make the
trial easy, expeditious, or inexpensive; (3) the relative
administrative difficulty from court congestion; (4) local
interest in deciding local controversies at home; (5) public
policies of the fora; and (6) the ...