Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Day v. 21St Century Centennial Insurance Co.

United States District Court, D. Delaware

August 11, 2014

ROY A. DAY, Plaintiff,
v.
21st CENTURY CENTENNIAL INSURANCE COMPANY and ANTHONY J. DESANTIS, Defendants.

Roy A. Day, Tarpon Springs, Florida, Pro Se Plaintiff.

Tracy A. Burleigh, Esquire, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

LEONARD P. STARK, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Roy A. Day ("Day") filed this declaratory judgment action (D.I. 2) on September 12, 2012, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, against Defendant 21st Century Centennial Insurance Company ("21st Century"), a Delaware corporation, and its president and chief executive officer, Anthony J. DeSantis ("DeSantis"). Day invokes jurisdiction by reason of diversity of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Day proceeds pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.I. 4) On March 17, 2014, the Court ordered the parties to brief the issue of whether the United District Court for the Middle District of Florida is a more convenient venue for this matter.[1] ( See D. I. 64) The parties have briefed the issue. In addition, Defendants filed a motion for Day to cease all direct communication with defendants. ( See D. I. 67) For the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny the motion to cease communications without prejudice to renew, and will order the action transferred to the United District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

II. BACKGROUND

Day filed this lawsuit on September 4, 2012. This was the first of nine lawsuits filed in this district by Day, in what appeared to be an attempt to avoid sanctions imposed on him by the Middle District of Florida.[2] See Day v. Ibison, 530 F.App'x 130, 132 (D. Del. July 17, 2013). The Court was unaware of the Florida sanctions when it granted Day's request to proceed in forma pauperis.

Day resides on Florida. He was involved in an automobile accident on June 23, 2010, when his 2010 Hyundai Accent was rear-ended by an uninsured motorist. The accident occurred in Port Richey, Florida. Day was insured by 21st Century at the time of the accident, and he filed a property damages claim. The claim was assigned to 21st Century's Florida South Auto Claims Team. The car was deemed a total loss, and 21st Century offered Day $10, 723.33 in exchange for his relinquishment of ownership of the Hyundai Accent. Day rejected the offer. Day alleges that because the insurance adjusters made a fraudulent initial offer, he was forced and coerced to transfer the insurance claim to DeSantis, the only individual with full and complete legal authority at 21st Century. Day made four counter-offers to DeSantis by mail but, as alleged, he did not receive a written rejection from Defendants.

The Complaint contains five counts. Count I seeks declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201; Count II alleges breach of contract; Count III alleges negligence; Count IV alleges fraud; and (5) Count V alleges emotional distress. Day seeks compensatory damages, declaratory relief, reasonable costs, and attorneys' fees.

III. LEGAL STANDARDS

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district in which the action might have been brought for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice. Congress intended through § 1404 to place discretion in district courts to adjudicate motions to transfer according to an individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and the interests of justice. See Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988); Affymetrix, Inc. v. Synteni, Inc., 28 F.Supp.2d 192, 208 (D. Del. 1998).

"Unless the balance is strongly in favor of a transfer, the plaintiffs choice of forum should prevail." ADE Corp. v. KLA-Tencor Corp., 138 F.Supp.2d 565, 567-68 (D. Del. 2001); see also Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp., 431 F.2d 22, 25 (3d Cir. 1970). The deference afforded a plaintiff's choice of forum will ordinarily apply as long as a plaintiff has selected the forum for some legitimate reason. See Medtronic, Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 587 F.Supp.2d 648, 654 (D. Del. 2008); Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. Integrated Circuit Sys., Inc., 2001 WL 1617186, at *2 (D. Del. Nov. 28, 2001); Continental Cas. Co. v. American Home Assurance Co., 61 F.Supp.2d 128, 131 (D. Del. 1999).

Although "there is no definitive formula or list of factors" to consider in assessing whether to transfer, typically a series of private and public interests are considered. See Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir. 1994). The private interests include: (1) plaintiffs forum preference as manifested in the original choice; (2) defendant's preference; (3) whether the claim arose elsewhere; (4) the convenience of the parties as indicated by their relative physical and financial condition; (5) the convenience of the witnesses but only to the extent that the witnesses may actually be unavailable for trial in one of the fora; and (6) location of books and records (similarly limited to the extent that the files could not be produced in the alternative forum). See id The public interests include: "(1) the enforceability of the judgment; (2) practical considerations that could make the trial easy, expeditious or inexpensive; (3) the relative administrative ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.