Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP

<p style="text-align: justify;">Philadelphia has much to recommend it.  World class cuisine.  Great universities.  Gritty.  But one thing Philadelphia, and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as a whole, lacks is any connection to the this case.”  With those words, Hon. Joshua D. Wolson, U.S.D.J. began his opinion in <em><a href="https://www.wcmlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Darrup-v.-Wal-Mart.pdf">Darrup v. Wal-Mart</a>,</em> wherein he transferred the case from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the Middle District.  In August 2018, Julie Darrup was a resident of Kulpmont, PA when she slipped and fell in a Walmart store in Coal Township, sustaining serious injuries.  Both Kulpmont and Coal Township are in Northumberland County.  After moving to Arizona, she filed suit against Walmart in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County.  Walmart removed the case to the Eastern District, because the law required removal to the district encompassing the county where the case was pending, i.e. Philadelphia.  Walmart subsequently moved to transfer the case to the Middle District for the convenience of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Darrup could have originally filed in the Middle District because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in Northumberland County, in the Middle District.  In deciding the motion, Judge Wolson considered both private interest factors and public interest factors.    The Court found two private interests weighing in favor of transfer.  The accident occurred in the Middle District, and Walmart preferred to litigate in that district.  However, convenience favored Darrup because it would be easier to travel from her home in Arizona to Philadelphia, than to a courthouse in the Middle District.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Two public interest factors weighed in favor of transfer.  First,  practical consideration for trial would lean to Middle District because it is the location of the controversy.  It would be easier to try the case with the relevant players in that District. Further, because the events occurred in the Middle District, that District has a greater interest in resolving the dispute.   The remaining public factors were neutral.  Both districts are in Pennsylvania, concerns surrounding the enforceability of a judgment, public polices of the forum, and the trial judge familiarity with the law would all be minimal.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">In granting Walmart’s Motion to Transfer, Judge Wolson wryly noted that Darrup “channels her inner W.C. Fields and argues that she’d rather be in Philadelphia.  The problem is that she never lived in this District, never got treatment in this District, and never had any other connection to this District.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Thanks to James Scott for his contribution to this post.  Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact <a href="mailto:tbracken@wcmlaw.com">Thomas Bracken.</a></p>