Preview
IN THE STATE COURT OF GWINNETT COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA
C. Richard Thompson et al, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CIVIL ACTION FILE NO.
) 21C07655-3
SAIA Motor Freight Line, LLC, )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
This is a wrongful death case arising from an auto accident between a commercial vehicle and a
pickup truck. Now Defendant moves to dismiss because Ohio is the appropriate forum state.
Considering the record and all applicable law, this Court HEREBY GRANTS Defendant's motion,
finding as follows:
If a court of this state, on written motion of a party, finds that in the interest of justice and for the
convenience of the parties and witnesses a claim or action would be more properly heard ina
forum outside this state...the Court shall decline to adjudicate the matter under the doctrine of
forum non conveniens. As to a claim or action that would be more properly heard in a forum
outside this state, the court shall dismiss the claim or action...In determining whether to grant a
motion to dismiss an action or to transfer venue under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the
court shall give consideration to the following factors: (1) Relative ease of access to sources of
proof; (2) Availability and cost of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses;
(3) Possibility of viewing of the premises, if viewing would be appropriate to the action;
(4) Unnecessary expense or trouble to the defendant not necessary to the plaintiff's own right to
pursue his or her remedy; (5) Administrative difficulties for the forum courts; (6) Existence of local
interests in deciding the case locally; and (7) The traditional deference given to a plaintiff's choice
of forum.
OCGA §9-10-31.1(a).
Defendant as movant carries the burden to establish that dismissal is appropriate.’ This Court
considers the elements set forth in OCGA §9-10-31.1{a) as follows:
(1) Relative ease of access to sources of proof — The accident at issue occurred in Ohio. Driver
Schull, no longer Defendant's employee, resides in Kentucky. His “home terminal” at the time in
question was in Ohio, which means he was hired, trained, tested, and supervised from there. His
personnel file was maintained there. Decedent Crawford was an Ohio resident, so the estate is
located there. Plaintiff Thompson, the estate’s personal representative, is an Ohio resident. Ruth
Crawford, also an Ohio resident, owned the passenger vehicle at issue. Plaintiff identifies as
witnesses Ohio Highway State Patrol Officers, Ohio first responders, and the Ohio coroner involved in
this case, comprising more than 10 individuais. Plaintiff Murphy resides in South Carolina. Defendant
‘RJ. Taylor Mem. Hosp., inc. v. Beck, 280 Ga. 660, 662 (2006)("as movant to transfer venue of the case, it had the
burden to show that the factors set forth in OCGA § 9-10-31. 1(a) support the transfer”),
Page 1 of 2is a Louisiana corporation with offices in Louisiana, Idaho, and Fulton County, Georgia. Its registered
agent is here in Gwinnett, undisputedly the only nexus this case has here. This factor clearly weighs
in favor of dismissal.
(2) Availability and cost of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses — Given the
significant preponderance of Ohio witnesses, Ohio process would be more available and cheaper
there. This factor weighs in favor of dismissal.
(3) Possibility of viewing of the premises, if viewing would be appropriate to the action — Defendant
has not shown that viewing the accident scene would be appropriate, so this factor does not support
dismissal.
(4) Unnecessary expense or trouble to the defendant not necessary to the plaintiff's own right to
pursue his or her remedy — Litigating this matter in Georgia gives rise to unnecessary trouble and
expense because the locus of the case clearly lies in Ohio. This factor supports dismissal.
(5) Administrative difficulties for the forum courts — Plaintiff filed his claims under Ohio law and the
parties agree that Ohio substantive law governs this suit. This factor clearly weighs in favor of
dismissal.
(6) Existence of local interests in deciding the case locally - Defendant has an office is in Fulton, and
its registered agent is here in Gwinnett. However, given Ohio’s connection to numerous witnesses
and the accident itself, this factor clearly favors dismissal.
(7) The traditional deference given to a plaintiff's choice of forum —This factor clearly militates against
dismissal.
In summary, factors 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 favor dismissal. Thus, both the interests of justice and the
convenience of the parties and witnesses require suit in Ohio. Defendant has filed a stipulation under
OCGA §9-10-31.1(b),? which Plaintiff has not impeached. Therefore, this Court HEREBY GRANTS
Defendant’s motion to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
Plaintiff has filed two motions to compel discovery (1.20.22, 5.11.22), and Defendant has filed a
motion for protective order (6.13.22). This Court leaves those pending so that the new Ohio forum
can decide them in accordance with its law.
SO ORDERED this 3thday of July , 2022,
Carla E. Brown, Judge
State Court of Gwinnett County
? “A court may not dismiss a claim under this Code section until the defendant files with the court or with the clerk of the
court a written stipulation that, with respect to a new action on the claim commenced by the plaintiff, all the defendants
waive the right to assert a statute of limitations defense in all other states of the United States in which the claim was not
barred by limitations at the time the claim was filed in this state as necessary to effect a tolling of the limitations periods in
those states beginning on the date the claim was filed in this state and ending on the date the claim is dismissed." Id.
Page 2 of 2
Preview
IN THE STATE COURT OF GWINNETT COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA C. Richard Thompson et al, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. ) 21C07655-3 SAIA Motor Freight Line, LLC, ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS This is a wrongful death case arising from an auto accident between a commercial vehicle and a pickup truck. Now Defendant moves to dismiss because Ohio is the appropriate forum state. Considering the record and all applicable law, this Court HEREBY GRANTS Defendant's motion, finding as follows: If a court of this state, on written motion of a party, finds that in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties and witnesses a claim or action would be more properly heard ina forum outside this state...the Court shall decline to adjudicate the matter under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. As to a claim or action that would be more properly heard in a forum outside this state, the court shall dismiss the claim or action...In determining whether to grant a motion to dismiss an action or to transfer venue under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the court shall give consideration to the following factors: (1) Relative ease of access to sources of proof; (2) Availability and cost of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses; (3) Possibility of viewing of the premises, if viewing would be appropriate to the action; (4) Unnecessary expense or trouble to the defendant not necessary to the plaintiff's own right to pursue his or her remedy; (5) Administrative difficulties for the forum courts; (6) Existence of local interests in deciding the case locally; and (7) The traditional deference given to a plaintiff's choice of forum. OCGA §9-10-31.1(a). Defendant as movant carries the burden to establish that dismissal is appropriate.’ This Court considers the elements set forth in OCGA §9-10-31.1{a) as follows: (1) Relative ease of access to sources of proof — The accident at issue occurred in Ohio. Driver Schull, no longer Defendant's employee, resides in Kentucky. His “home terminal” at the time in question was in Ohio, which means he was hired, trained, tested, and supervised from there. His personnel file was maintained there. Decedent Crawford was an Ohio resident, so the estate is located there. Plaintiff Thompson, the estate’s personal representative, is an Ohio resident. Ruth Crawford, also an Ohio resident, owned the passenger vehicle at issue. Plaintiff identifies as witnesses Ohio Highway State Patrol Officers, Ohio first responders, and the Ohio coroner involved in this case, comprising more than 10 individuais. Plaintiff Murphy resides in South Carolina. Defendant ‘RJ. Taylor Mem. Hosp., inc. v. Beck, 280 Ga. 660, 662 (2006)("as movant to transfer venue of the case, it had the burden to show that the factors set forth in OCGA § 9-10-31. 1(a) support the transfer”), Page 1 of 2is a Louisiana corporation with offices in Louisiana, Idaho, and Fulton County, Georgia. Its registered agent is here in Gwinnett, undisputedly the only nexus this case has here. This factor clearly weighs in favor of dismissal. (2) Availability and cost of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses — Given the significant preponderance of Ohio witnesses, Ohio process would be more available and cheaper there. This factor weighs in favor of dismissal. (3) Possibility of viewing of the premises, if viewing would be appropriate to the action — Defendant has not shown that viewing the accident scene would be appropriate, so this factor does not support dismissal. (4) Unnecessary expense or trouble to the defendant not necessary to the plaintiff's own right to pursue his or her remedy — Litigating this matter in Georgia gives rise to unnecessary trouble and expense because the locus of the case clearly lies in Ohio. This factor supports dismissal. (5) Administrative difficulties for the forum courts — Plaintiff filed his claims under Ohio law and the parties agree that Ohio substantive law governs this suit. This factor clearly weighs in favor of dismissal. (6) Existence of local interests in deciding the case locally - Defendant has an office is in Fulton, and its registered agent is here in Gwinnett. However, given Ohio’s connection to numerous witnesses and the accident itself, this factor clearly favors dismissal. (7) The traditional deference given to a plaintiff's choice of forum —This factor clearly militates against dismissal. In summary, factors 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 favor dismissal. Thus, both the interests of justice and the convenience of the parties and witnesses require suit in Ohio. Defendant has filed a stipulation under OCGA §9-10-31.1(b),? which Plaintiff has not impeached. Therefore, this Court HEREBY GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Plaintiff has filed two motions to compel discovery (1.20.22, 5.11.22), and Defendant has filed a motion for protective order (6.13.22). This Court leaves those pending so that the new Ohio forum can decide them in accordance with its law. SO ORDERED this 3thday of July , 2022, Carla E. Brown, Judge State Court of Gwinnett County ? “A court may not dismiss a claim under this Code section until the defendant files with the court or with the clerk of the court a written stipulation that, with respect to a new action on the claim commenced by the plaintiff, all the defendants waive the right to assert a statute of limitations defense in all other states of the United States in which the claim was not barred by limitations at the time the claim was filed in this state as necessary to effect a tolling of the limitations periods in those states beginning on the date the claim was filed in this state and ending on the date the claim is dismissed." Id. Page 2 of 2