BUY™	SELL™	SHOP™
Downloaded From www.TextBookDiscrimination.com
SELL YOUR OWN TEMPLATES (help others get the justice that they deserve)
BUY™	SELL™	SHOP™

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

[courtDistrict], [courtDivision]

[plfName]	)	Case No (LT)
Plaintiff	)	[caseNo]
)
v.	)
)
[defName]	)
Defendant	)

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

Plaintiff, [plfName], on this [D] day of [MMM] [YYYY], respectfully asks this Court to transfer this case to the [transfereeCourt] – [transfereeDistrict].

Key Points:

Grounds	proper court;

Points	28 USC §455; witness convenience; no prejudice

Table of Contents:

Context	3
Motion	4
Certificates	23

Background:	[background]

Problem:	[problem]

Request:	Court transfers this case to an appropriate court

28 USC §1404a | Change of Venue

“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 or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.”

Rule 1 | Fed. R. Civ. P. | Scope and Purpose

“[These rules] should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”

Precedence

4:15-cv-00339-RH-CAS	- USFLND (11/2/15)

1:19-cv-00136-AW-GRJ	- USFLND (11/14/19)

4:22-cv-00086-MW-MAF	- USFLND (3/2/22)

USFLND has recently transferred cases on similar grounds

Abbreviations

[C###]	-	Paragraph ### from ‘This Complaint’
1DCA	-	Florida’s First District Court of Appeals
FCHR	-	Florida Commission on Human Relations
FS	-	Florida Statute
USFLMD	-	US District Court, Florida, Middle District
USFLND	-	US District Court, Florida, Northern District

MOTION

Pertinent History

[fact001]

[fact002]

[fact003]

“[quote003]”

[cite003]

[fact004]

[fact004a]

[fact005]

[fact005a]

[fact005b]

[fact006]

[fact007]

[fact008]

[fact009]

[fact010]

Analysis

[any001]

[any001a]

[any002]

[any002a]

[any002b]

[any002c]

[any003]

[any004]

[any004a]

[any004b]

[any005]

[any006]

[any007]

[any008]

[any009]

[any010]

Standard of Review

Rule 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. provides persuasive authority to transfer This Case in order to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of all civil actions.

28 USC §1404(a), more powerfully, provides statutory authority for transferring a case (highlights added):

“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 or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.”

28 USC §1404(a) | 2020

District courts have used this statute to set the standard for reviewing transfer motions:

“Rather, the standard is set by statute: "For the convenience of parties and witnesses, [and] in the interest of justice.”

Mobil v SEC, 550 F.Supp. 67 (USNYSD 1982)

The Northern District of Illinois (USILND) goes deeper:

“In order to meet the requirements of § 1404(a), the movant must establish "(1) that venue is proper in the transferor district; (2) that the transferor court has the power to transfer the case (that is, that the transferee court is in a district `where it might have been brought'); and (3) that the transfer is for the `convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.'" Hess v. Gray, 85 F.R.D. 15, 24 (N.D.Ill. 1979)."

Hotel v. Seagrave, 543 F.Supp. 1048 (USILND 1982)

In short, Plaintiff must show that:

[transferorCourt] is a proper venue;

[transfereeCourt] is also a proper venue; and

Transfer will serve (a) the convenience of parties/witnesses; and (b) the interest of justice.

Those first two prongs are rather simple, according to the Hotel court. That third prong, though, is explained like this:

"The Court now turns to requirement (3). To support a motion to transfer, the movant must show a "clear balance of inconvenience" in this district over the transferee district. SEC v. First National Finance Corp., 392 F. Supp. 239, 240 (N.D.Ill. 1975) In determining whether the movant has met this burden, the Court must consider the factors specifically mentioned in § 1404(a) (convenience of the parties, convenience of the witnesses and the interests of justice in general) while also giving weight to plaintiff's choice of forum.”

Hotel v. Seagrave, 543 F.Supp. 1048 (USILND 1982)

These ‘factors for consideration’ were further delineated in Pennsylvania’s Eastern District:

"Motions to transfer are determined by consideration of the same factors relevant to a determination of a forum non conveniens motion. Norwood v. Kirkpatrick, 349 U.S. 29, 75 S. Ct. 544, 99 L. Ed. 789 (1955). They are:

1. relative ease of access to sources of proof;

2. availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses;

3. cost of attendance at trial by willing witnesses;

4. the possibility of view of the premises, if appropriate;

5. all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive;

6. "public interest" factors, including the relative congestion of court dockets, choice of law considerations, and the relation of the community in which the courts and jurors are required to serve to the occurrences that give rise to the litigation.

Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508-09, 67 S. Ct. 839, 843, 91 L. Ed. 1055 (1947).”

Schmidt v. Leader Dogs, 544 F.Supp. 42 (USPAED 1982)

That last factor (ie, 6) speaks to judicial economy. The Supreme Court has spoken on this pillar, too (highlights added):

“To permit a situation in which two cases involving precisely the same issues are simultaneously pending in different District Courts leads to the wastefulness of time, energy and money that § 1404(a) was designed to prevent.”

Continental Grain v The FBL-585, 364 US 19 (1960)

As has the Third Circuit (highlights added):

“Moreover, we also believe that in an appropriate case the court may properly consider whether judicial efficiency would be served by enabling the judge who has presided over the pre-trial phase of a multi-district proceeding, and thereby has become familiar with the parties and the issues, to try the actions himself rather than to return them to one or more district judges who must acquaint themselves with the cases' complexities.”

In Re Fine Paper, 685 F.2d 810 (3d Cir. 1982)

Ditto for Delaware’s district court (highlights added):

“One of the prime components of the "interest of justice" is the maintenance of sound judicial administration... Central to efficient and effective judicial administration is a policy, implied in section 1404(a), of proper conservation and utilization of judicial resources.”

Smithkline v Sterling, 409 F.Supp. 52 (USDEAD 1975)

That same Delaware court – in a different case – further elaborated this principle (highlights added):

“In Abbott Laboratories, supra, 387 U.S. at 154-5, 87 S. Ct. at 1519, the Supreme Court discussed the government's fear of a "multiplicity of suits in various jurisdictions" all dealing with the same subject matter. The Court stated:

The short answer to this contention is that the courts are well equipped to deal with such eventualities. The venue transfer provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), may be invoked by the Government to consolidate separate actions.

There can be no argument with the position that the avoidance of multiple litigation of the same, or related, issues in more than one court, and the resulting conservation of judicial resources, is a strong interest of justice factor.”

Amoco v US DOE, 469 F.Supp. 236 (USDEAD 1979)

Notably, New York’s Southern District expounded on a pertinent element (highlights added):

“Allowing [the transferee judge] to interpret the scope of [plaintiff’s] protective order would be the most efficient use of judicial resources. Moreover, a transfer to the District of Columbia court avoids duplication of judicial efforts since that court has at least some familiarity with these documents. Thus, the public interest in conserving judicial resources strongly supports my decision to transfer this action.”

Mobil v SEC, 550 F.Supp. 67 (USNYSD 1982)

Altogether, the courts have established a 3-prong standard of review (for a motion to transfer venue). And that third prong is broken down into six parts. The last such part is dominated by judicial economy.

Application to the Instant Case (Makere v Early)

Now, Plaintiff will hereby show that all three of those prongs – and all six of those subparts – are in Plaintiff’s favor.

[transferorCourt] is a Proper Venue

[transferorCourt] is indeed a proper venue, for three reasons:

[arg001a]

[arg001b]

[arg001c]

According to precedence set by the Hotel court, these facts satisfy the first prong (highlights added):

"Requirements (1) and (2) are met in this case. Venue is proper in this district because plaintiff resides in Illinois for venue purposes”

Hotel v. Seagrave, 543 F.Supp. 1048 (USILND 1982)

[transfereeCourt] is a Proper Venue

[transfereeCourt] is also a proper venue, for five reasons:

[arg002a]

[arg002b]

[arg002c]

[arg002d]

[arg002e]

According to that same Hotel precedent, this satisfies the second prong (highlights added):

"Requirements (1) and (2) are met in this case. Venue is proper in this district because plaintiff resides in Illinois for venue purposes, and this action could have been brought in the [transferee district], which has proper jurisdiction because defendants reside there under 28 U.S.C § 1332 and 1391.”

Hotel v. Seagrave, 543 F.Supp. 1048 (USILND 1982)

Convenience of Parties/Witnesses and ‘Interest of Justice’

Third, transferring This Case to the [transfereeCourt] would (a) be more convenient for the parties/witnesses; and (b) better serve the ‘interest of justice’. Therefore, it will satisfy the final prong.

[1] ease of access to proof

[arg003]

[arg004]

[2] availability of compulsory process

[arg005]

[arg006]

[3] cost of attendance at trial

[arg007]

[arg008]

The Hotel court established that this witness calculation is a major factor (highlights added):

"In analyzing the convenience of witnesses, the Court must look to the expenses of transportation and the length of time the witnesses will be absent from their jobs.”

Hotel v. Seagrave, 543 F.Supp. 1048 (USILND 1982)

The Hotel court also explained that each party’s financial strength is a factor (highlights added):

"Both plaintiff and defendants will be inconvenienced if this action is brought in the other parties' resident district and the financial strengths of the parties are equivalent.”

Hotel v. Seagrave, 543 F.Supp. 1048 (USILND 1982)

[arg009]

[arg010]

[4] possibility of view of the premises

[arg011]

[arg012]

[5] all other practical problems

[arg013]

[arg014]

[6] public interest factors

[arg015]

[arg016]

"[quote016]”

[cite016]

[arg017]

[arg018]

"[arg018]”

[cite018]

[arg019]

[arg020]

Moreover, as the Amoco court established, the public’s interest in the proper administration of justice can often be the dominating factor/prong in considering transfer:

" In my view, the question whether these actions should be transferred to the District of Columbia must be determined solely on the "interest of justice" factors.”

Amoco v US DOE, 469 F.Supp. 236 (USDEAD 1979)

[arg021]

[X] plaintiff’s choice of forum

As a bonus x-factor, albeit an important one, This Court must also place great weight on Plaintiff’s choice of forum.

"a plaintiff's choice of forum is entitled to substantial weight and is thus "a paramount consideration in any determination of a transfer request...”

Smithkline v Sterling, 409 F.Supp. 52 (USDEAD 1975)

[arg022]

Summary

[summ01]

“if the factors favoring transfer outweigh the value of litigating the policy issue here and the preference given the plaintiff's choice of forum, then the case should be transferred.”

Starnes v McGuire, 512 F.2d 918 (DC Cir. 1974)

Given this reality, transfer to [transfereeCourt] is proper/necessary.

Transfer is further encouraged by the lack of prejudice imposed on Defendant. A contention supported by the fact that Defendant has never claimed prejudice.

Nature of Relief Sought

[nos001]

[nos001a]

As such, all parties and participants will receive the transfer benefits described by the Smithkline court:

“Transfer of this action to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where it presumably will be assigned to the same Judge currently trying Civil Action No. *56 74-2957,[12] will result in the following benefits: (1) pre-trial discovery can be conducted more efficiently; (2) the witnesses can be saved the time and expense of appearing in more than one tribunal; (3) duplicative litigation can be avoided, thereby eliminating unnecessary expense to the parties; and (4) inconsistent results can be avoided.”

...

In addition, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's current familiarity with the issues of fact and law in this case[13] stands as a further and distinct justification in a patent case for granting defendant's motion to transfer.

Smithkline v Sterling, 409 F.Supp. 52 (USDEAD 1975)

CONFERRAL

On [confMth] [confDy], [confYr], [conferralStatement].

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully asks this Court to transfer this case to the [transfereeCourt] – [transfereeDistrict].

Dated this [D] day of [MMM] [YYYY].

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ [plfName]

[plfName], Plaintiff

[plfAddy]

P: [plfPhn]

E: [plfEml]

W: TextBookDiscrimination.com

Get Booked Up on Justice!

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the size and style of type used in this document is Times New Roman 14-point Font (caption) and Courier New (contents); thus complying with the font requirements of Local Rule 5.1(C) USFLND. Also, pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(F), this document has less than 8,000 words ([wdCount]).

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this [D] day of [MMM] [YYYY], I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Courts by using its online filing page. A notice – via CM/ECF – will be sent to the attached service list.

/s/ [plfName]

Endnotes:

How-To Guide: (interactive)

TextBookDiscrimination.com/Guides/Motions/Transfer.html

SERVICE LIST

[defAtt], Esquire ([barNum]) E: [defEml] P: [defPhn] (defendant’s trial lawyers)

BUY™	SELL™	SHOP™
Downloaded From www.TextBookDiscrimination.com
SELL YOUR OWN TEMPLATES (help others get the justice that they deserve)
BUY™	SELL™	SHOP™