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.

Harry Pepper & Associates, Inc. v. Western Surety Co.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division

January 6, 2017

HARRY PEPPER & ASSOCIATES, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
WESTERN SURETY COMPANY, Defendant.

          ORDER

          TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN Judge.

         This breach of contract dispute is before the Court on Defendant Western Surety Company's Motion to Dismiss, Transfer, or Stay and Order to Arbitration (Doc. 8), to which Plaintiff Harry Pepper & Associates, Inc. (“HPA”) has filed a response (Doc. 12).

         I. BACKGROUND

         As part of a restoration project for the rocket launch site at the Stennis Space Center in Hancock County Mississippi, NASA awarded a contract to Jacksonville-based construction company HPA. Pursuant to a January 2014 task order, HPA entered into a subcontract with PASI of LA, Inc. (the “Subcontract”) to perform blasting and painting work on a structure at Stennis called the B2 Test Stand. Western, as surety, issued Subcontract Performance Bond No. 58709779 (the “Bond”), which named HPA as “Obligee (Contractor)” and PASI as “Principal (Subcontractor).” (See Doc. 1-1, an excerpt of the Bond).

         After work at the site had begun, NASA allegedly became aware that PASI had failed to comply with its obligations under the Subcontract, specifically by failing to properly abate lead-based paint, and shut down all work on the B2 Test Stand. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 16-23). As a result, in February 2015, HPA terminated the Subcontract with PASI for default, though PASI contests that it was in default and claims the termination was wrongful. (Id. ¶ 30).

         HPA demanded that Western undertake performance of its Bond obligations, which include remedying the default, completing the Subcontract, obtaining new contractors, paying HPA, or denying liability. (Doc. 1-1 at 3). In March 2015, a Western representative visited the site at Stennis and met with HPA representatives regarding PASI's alleged default. (Doc. 1 ¶ 36; Doc. 8 at 3). Western allegedly notified HPA that it was proceeding with a bid process for replacement contractors, and HPA obtained bids from alternate subcontractors and alleges that it submitted those proposals to Western. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 50, 64-65). Despite the parties' actions, replacement contractors were not hired, and in October 2015, Western wrote to HPA that it disputes coverage and liability for the damages arising out of the default. (Id. ¶ 67).

         This confluence of events has spawned numerous legal actions. In August 2015, HPA filed a demand for arbitration against PASI, and the parties are arbitrating their dispute in Hancock County, Mississippi.[1] (Doc. 8-1). In November 2015, PASI filed a lawsuit against HPA and its Payment Bond Surety, Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Southern Division (Doc. 8-5); the court stayed the case in the interest of judicial economy pending the outcome of arbitration (Doc. 8-7). Finally, on May 27, 2016, HPA filed this lawsuit against Western, alleging two counts for breach of contract (Doc. 1).[2] Now, Western contends that venue here is improper and thus argues that the Court should dismiss or transfer the case, or stay the case and order the parties to arbitrate the dispute. (Doc. 8). HPA opposes the motion on the grounds that venue is proper here, as the Bond covers HPA, a Jacksonville-based company, and the parties corresponded to and from Florida in the course of discussing their obligations under the Bond. (Doc. 12).

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         A motion to transfer venue is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Section 1404(a) is the statutory codification of the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens. See Tampa Bay Storm v. Arena Football League, Inc., 932 F.Supp. 281, 282 (M.D. Fla. 1996). The section states: “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

         Under § 1404(a), a district court may transfer any civil action to any district where it could have been brought for: (1) the convenience of the parties; (2) the convenience of the witnesses; and (3) the interests of justice. See Robinson v. Giarmarco & Bill, P.C., 74 F.3d 253, 260 (11th Cir. 1996). The Eleventh Circuit has determined that a court should be somewhat restrictive in transferring actions, stating that “[t]he plaintiff's choice of forum should not be disturbed unless the movant can show that it is clearly outweighed by other considerations.” See id. (quoting Howell v. Tanner, 650 F.2d 610, 616 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 918 (1982) (internal quotations omitted)). The movant has the burden of persuading the trial court that the transfer is appropriate and should be granted. See id. In considering whether to transfer, the Court must consider: the plaintiff's initial choice of forum, convenience of the parties and witnesses, relative ease of access to sources of proof, availability of compulsory process for witnesses, location of relative documents, financial ability to bear the cost of the change, and all other practical problems that make trial of the case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive. See Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947).

         III. ANALYSIS[3]

         A. Jurisdiction in the Southern District of Mississippi

         HPA does not dispute that the matter could have been brought in the Southern District of Mississippi; it merely argues that its chosen venue is proper and transfer is unwarranted. (Doc. 12 at 1-6). Based on the allegations of HPA's complaint, which show that the vast majority of events giving rise to HPA's cause of action occurred in Mississippi, the case could have been brought in Mississippi as well as in Florida. ...


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.