Automated Summary
Key Facts
Aileen Fessia, a Utah resident, was struck by a food services cart operated by HMSHost Corporation employee Baron Ladia at Kahului Airport in Hawaii in July 2023. The incident resulted in serious and permanent injuries requiring multiple surgeries and preventing her from working. HMS, which operates airport food services nationwide, filed a motion to transfer the case from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (where it is headquartered) to the District of Hawaii (where the incident occurred) nearly five months after the lawsuit was filed. The plaintiffs opposed the transfer, citing Maryland's proximity to their home, lower litigation costs, and the availability of three expert witnesses in Maryland. The court denied the motion, finding that HMS failed to demonstrate the balance of §1404(a) factors strongly favored transfer, particularly due to the plaintiffs' chosen forum's convenience for most witnesses and parties, and HMS's delayed request appearing motivated by litigation strategy rather than genuine inconvenience.
Issues
- The court found that transferring the case to Hawaii would inconvenience key witnesses, including the plaintiffs' treating physician and retained experts in Maryland, while only one defendant's witness (Baron Ladia) might face inconvenience in Maryland. This factor weighed against transfer.
- The court determined the interest of justice strongly opposed transfer, citing the defendant's significant delay in filing the motion (five months after suit was filed) and evidence of procedural gamesmanship to influence the applicable law, rather than genuine concerns about venue.
- The court evaluated whether to transfer the case from the District of Maryland to the District of Hawaii under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), considering factors including plaintiffs' choice of venue, witness convenience, parties' convenience, and the interest of justice.
- The court analyzed the weight to be given to the plaintiffs' choice of the District of Maryland as their forum, noting that while they chose it, none of the negligent acts occurred there and they do not reside there, resulting in neutral deference.
Holdings
The court denied the defendant's motion to transfer the case to the District of Hawaii under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The decision emphasized that the defendant failed to meet its burden to show the plaintiffs' chosen forum (District of Maryland) should be disturbed, citing factors including the plaintiffs' choice of venue, convenience of witnesses, parties' convenience, and the interest of justice. The court found the balance of factors weighed against transfer, particularly noting the defendant's delay in filing the motion and its strategic motives.
Remedies
The Court denied HMS's motion to transfer the case to the District of Hawaii, finding that the defendant did not meet its burden to disturb the plaintiffs' chosen forum. The motion to transfer was denied on February 10, 2026.
Legal Principles
- The court applied the factors under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for forum non conveniens, including the plaintiff's choice of venue, witness convenience, party convenience, and the interest of justice. The motion to transfer was denied because the balance did not strongly favor the defendant.
- The defendant bore the burden to show transfer was proper by a preponderance of evidence, but failed to meet it due to insufficient justification and procedural delays.
Precedent Name
- Bell v. CSX Transp., Inc.
- Manne v. Jaddou
- Kimber v. Plus3 IT Sys., LLC
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert
- Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. Tex.
- Mamani v. Bustamante
- Collins v. Straight, Inc.
- D2L Ltd. v. Blackboard, Inc.
- Menk v. MITRE Corp.
- Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Cap. One Fin. Corp.
- CoStar Realty Info., Inc. v. Meissner
- Versus Evil LLC v. PNC Bank, Nat'l Ass'n
- Atl. City Assocs. No. Two (S-1), LLC v. Reale
Cited Statute
Judicial Code and Rules of Practice and Procedure
Judge Name
Deborah L. Boardman
Passage Text
- Only one key fact witness—the HMS employee who struck Fessia with the cart—might arguably be inconvenienced by litigating this case in Maryland, whereas three other important witnesses—Aileen Fessia's treating physician and the Fessias' two retained experts—would be inconvenienced if this case were transferred to Hawaii.
- The Court will not countenance HMS's gamesmanship and dilatory tactics by granting its motion to transfer.
- Though this case could have been brought in the District of Hawaii, HMS has not met its burden to show that the balance of the § 1404(a) factors tips strongly enough in its favor to justify disturbing the plaintiffs' choice of forum.