Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :08-cv-00144-SLR Document 18 Filed 05/23/2008 Page 1 ot 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ·
DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE CO., :
Plaintifi
v. Civil Action No: 08-0144 (SLR)
GREEN PARK FINANCIAL L.P., et al.,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT GREEN PARK FINANCIAL L.P.’S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN
SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO
TRANSFER TO THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
St. Paul’s Opposition acknowledges that it brought suit in this Court so that it
could include Woodlark in this insurance coverage dispute (Opp. at 6), notwithstanding that
Woodlark is a stranger to the insurance contracts between Green Park and St. Paul and that St.
Paul (unsurprisingly) seeks no relief as to Woodlark. When Woodlarlcs presence in the case is
disregarded, as it should be, it is clear that the case should be transferred to Maryland —~ the
jurisdiction in which Green Park is based, in which the policies were issued, and whose law
applies.
St. Paul could not have been more candid in its Opposition: “This case involves
the application of Maryland state law to the insurance contract between St. Paul and Green
Park." (Id.) Woodlark is not a party to the insurance contracts between St. Paul and Green Park
and has no role in this dispute, as confirmed by St. Paul’s failure to ask the Court for any relief
from Woodlark. 1 Instead, St. PauI’s Complaint asserts only that an "actual and justiciable
1 Because Vence and the plaintiffs in the West Virginia litigation are, like Woodiark,
strangers to the insurance contracts between Green Park and St. Paul, Green Park agrees with St.
(continued. . .)
oc; zsszsim

Case 1:08-cv-00144-SLR Document 18 Filed 05/23/2008 Page 2 of 3
controversy exists between Green Park and St. Paul with respect to St. Paul’s defense and
indemnity obligations? (Comp}. ll 23 (emphasis added).) St. Paul then seeks a declaration that
St. Paul has no obligation "to defend Green Park" or “to indemnify Green Park" with respect to
the West Virginia litigation. (Id. Prayer for Relief {[1] (a), (h) (emphasis added).) In the absence
of Woodlark, there is no reason ~»· @5; — why this case should remain in this Court.
if not dismissed, the case should be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland. Even if St. Paul is correct that venue lays in this Court, the Court may and
should transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § l404(a). In considering whether to transfer under section
l404(a), the Third Circuit has "provided an extensive list of factors that may be relevant,"
several of which favor transfer of this case, including the "defendant’s choice of forum," "where
the claim arose,” "the local interest in deciding local controversies at home," and "the familiarity
of the two courts with state law." E. g., In re Amendt, 169 Fed. App’x 93, 96 (3d Cir. 2006)
(quoting Jumnmlv. State Farm [ns. C0., 55 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir. 1995)). Because there is no
dispute that this case requires interpretation under Maryland law of insurance contracts that
provide coverage for a Maryland insured, the claim arises in Maryland; moreover, Maryland,
unlike Delaware, has a local interest in resolving the controversy, and, with all respect, a federal
judge based in Maryland is likely to be more familiar with Maryland insurance law than is this
Court.
St. Paul ignores most of these factors and contends that the Court should defer to
its choice of forum "as long as it selected this forum for a legitimate reason." (Opp. at 6.) St.
Paul, however, cannot satisfy even this burden, and its choice of forum should therefore be
Paul that Vence andthe West Virginia plaintiffs are not indispensable to this litigation. As non- l
parties to the insurance policies at issue, none is a proper party here.
nc; zszsaiv-1 2

Case 1:08-cv-00144-SLR Document 18 Filed 05/23/2008 Page 3 of 3
disregarded. The only reason that St. Paul chose this forum was to sue Woodiark — a non-party
to the insurance contracts at issue and a party from whom St. Paul does not seek any relief St.
Paul°s choice of this forum therefore rests on a flawed premise and should be accorded little or
no weight.2
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, as well as the reasons stated in Green Parl<’s
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of this Motion, the Court should transfer this
case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
Respectfully submitted,
Of Counsel: POT 2 .,L___ R ANDERSON OR LLP
sii · » i//‘: ~ .... *
Neil K- R¤ma¤ ( -.,,_ ( t‘t‘ . .-/e’ /-.. .. , .r-a.; ¤-.. ( ‘lr-- -; -.,.
Marialuisa S. Gallozzi By .:-` I ja . ZE, _ ·l·‘ t ..:.-----.__
Joshua D. Wolson David J. Baldwin, D Bgir *` o. l010 `
COVNGTON & BURLING LLP Hercules Plaza at 4:, it
1201 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. 1313 North Market W eet
Washington, DC. 20004 Wilmington, DE 19801
(202) 662-6000 (telephone) (302) 984—60l7 (telephone)
(202) 6626291 (facsimile) (302) 6584192 (facsimile)
Email: [email protected]
Artorneysfar Defendant Green Park Financial L.P.
May 23, 2008
2 St. Paul’s assertion that it is “not a party to the West Virginia action" (Opp. at 6 11.3) is
simply not true. On May 9, 2008, the Judge in the West Virginia litigation orally granted ‘
Woodlark’s motion to amend its third-party complaint and add St. Paul as a party. if St. Paul
wants a judicial determination that Woodlark has no legitimate claim against it, St. Paul should
moveto dismiss Woodlark’s thirdparty complaint pursuant to W.V. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
oc; 2833917% W 3

Case 1:08-cv—00144-SLR Document 18-2 Filed 05/23/2008 Page 1 of 1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, David J. Baldwin, do hereby certify that on this 23rd day of May, 2008, true and
correct copies ofthe foregoing Defendant Green Park Financial L.P.’s Reply Memorandum in
Support of its Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Transfer to the District of Maryland,
were served upon all counsel of record via that Court’s CM/ECP electronic filing system.
-·-, ······
-·.--_' .. -··‘`'- Z-- ‘`''.l‘» - ,..i· ,,,,, Q `’`;- =.. ‘ ‘-,.. ·‘i:' ==;; `
David J. Baldwin ` lii`
nc; zamiv-1

Case 1:08-cv-00144-SLR

Document 18

Filed 05/23/2008

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:08-cv-00144-SLR

Document 18

Filed 05/23/2008

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:08-cv-00144-SLR

Document 18

Filed 05/23/2008

Page 3 of 3

Case 1:08-cv-00144-SLR

Document 18-2

Filed 05/23/2008

Page 1 of 1