A Washington federal judge granted an airline's motion to transfer an in-flight personal injury claim to Pennsylvania in Martin v. Am. Airlines, Inc. Plaintiff was a passenger on a flight from Seattle, Washington to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Approximately thirty minutes into that flight, Plaintiff claims to have experienced severe nausea and abdominal cramping. She contends that the airline failed to provide medical and other assistance during the flight, failed to help her disembark the aircraft, and failed to render care at the arrival gate. Plaintiff subsequently was diagnosed with colonic sigmoid volvulus, which required removal of her large intestine. She claims that surgery would not have been required if the airline had rendered timely medical care and assistance.
Plaintiff sued American Airlines in Washington State court. American promptly removed to federal court and then moved for transfer to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, pursuant to section 1404(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code. Section 1404(a) provides that a court may "transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought" for "the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice." Courts consider the following factors in their application of section 1404(a), including: (i) location where relevant agreements were negotiated or executed, (ii) the state most familiar with the applicable law, (iii) Plaintiff's choice of venue, (iv) the respective parties' contacts with the forum, (v) the contacts relating to Plaintiff's cause of action in the chosen venue, (vi) cost differential between the two venues, (vii) the availability of compulsory process to compel non-party witnesses to attend, and (viii) ease of access to sources of proof.
The Washington federal court applied those factors in an
objective and straightforward manner, initially finding it
significant that none of the parties resided in Washington at the
time of the lawsuit (Plaintiff did reside in Washington at the time
of the subject flight, but later was transferred by her
employer). Because Plaintiff purchased her ticket in
Washington and a Washington court could be more adept at applying
Washington contract law, those factors weighed slightly in favor of
Plaintiff's choice of venue. However, the alleged
misconduct did not occur in Washington and virtually all of the
material witnesses were located in Philadelphia, including two of
the three flight attendants, American's arrival gate agents,
Plaintiff's own parents, and several of the treating
physicians. With the remaining transfer factors being
neutral, the Washington Court found that circumstances weighed in
favor of transfer and
granted American's motion. Martin v. Am.
Airlines, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00735-RAJ, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
32684 (W.D. Wash. Fed. 22, 2021).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
