Federal Court Denies Motion To Remand To State Court, But Grants Motion To Transfer Venue

In the case of Farmington Cas. Co. v. HP Inc., No. 2:23-CV-01022-KBH (E.D. Pa. Nov. 21, 2023 Hodge, J.), the court addressed a Motion to Remand and venue issues in a fire loss subrogation claim by an insurance company.

In this case, the court declined to remand the case back to the state court given that there was diversity of the parties and the Defendant’s reference to a state court action involving other parties did not compel a decision that the case be remanded. In other words, the Plaintiff’s efforts to rely upon non-parties, who were involved in the related state court action, did not support the request for a remand in this federal court case in terms of an allegation of lack of diversity of jurisdiction.

In denying the Motion to Remand, the court further held that it could not consider discretionary factors like arguments of judicial economy in evaluating whether or not a case should be remanded.

The Eastern District Federal Court otherwise ruled that the case would be transferred to the Middle District Court of Pennsylvania given that that was where the fire occurred and where the homeowners had purchased the alleged computer that allegedly caused the fire and where the Plaintiff’s daughter, who was the executrix of the Plaintiff’s estate resided.

The court additionally noted that only one (1) corporate witness and none of the expert witnesses resided in the Eastern District, which offered further support of a transfer of the case to the Middle District.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Dec. 14, 2023).