Spitz v. Starr Indemnity & Liability Company, Inc.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
• Decided: March 21, 2025
• Docket: 5:24-cv-00500
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

RANDY SPITZ, an individual, as Assignee of ) NANCY AGUILAR, an individual, and ) REAL TRUCKING, INC., a corporation, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-24-500-D ) STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY ) COMPANY, INC., a corporation, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. No. 116], to which Plaintiff responded [Doc. No. 123], and Defendant replied [Doc. No. 124]. This case was transferred from the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Generally, a district court exercising diversity jurisdiction applies the choice-of- law rules of the State in which it sits. See Gerson v. Logan River Acad., 20 F.4th 1263, 1270 (10th Cir. 2021). However, “when, as here, a case lands in a forum by way of transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) on motion by the defendant, the transferee court generally must use the choice-of-law rules that would have prevailed in the transferor court.” Id. Although both parties apply Oklahoma choice-of-law principles in their briefing, the parties are directed to file supplemental briefing to address the following: 1) whether the Court should apply the choice-of-law principles of Illinois, given that this case was transferred from Illinois to this Court via Section 1404(a); and 2) which state substantive law applies to Plaintiff’s claims using a choice-of-law analysis under Illinois law. The parties’ simultaneous supplemental briefing will be due on or before April 3, 2025, and will be limited to 5 pages in length. IT IS SO ORDERED this 21“ day of March, 2025.

by Q OPit TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI Chief United States District Judge