GAUD
v.
THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION (FEC)
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court granted the plaintiffs' request to transfer the case to the Northern District of Florida.
Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Middle District of Florida but intended to file it in the Northern District. The court construed their actions as …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Forum'S Familiarity With Governing Law cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendants. /
ORDER1
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiffs’ Emergency Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief (Doc. 1). On January 6, the Plaintiffs dropped off the
Plaintiffs captioned the Complaint as filed there. After a bit of back and forth on whether the Clerk’s Office should accept the Complaint, it eventually did. From the Court’s understanding of this situation, it liberally construes Plaintiffs’ attempts as seeking to file the case here and transfer to the Northern
District. “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). District courts have
“broad discretion” to order the transfer to a more convenient forum. England v. ITT Thompson Indus., Inc., 856 F. 2d 1518, 1520 (11th Cir. 1988). The Eleventh Circuit set out several factors for courts to consider: (1) the convenience of the witnesses; (2) the location of relevant documents and the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (3) the convenience of the parties; (4) the locus of operative facts; (5) the availability of process to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses; (6) the relative means of the parties; (7) a forum’s familiarity with the governing law; (8) the weight accorded a plaintiff’s choice of forum; and (9) trial efficiency and the interests of justice, based on the totality of the circumstances.
Kelling v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins., 961 F. Supp. 2d 1216, 1218 (M.D. Fla. 2013) (quoting Manuel v. Convergys Corp., 430 F. 3d 1132, 1135 n.1 (11th Cir. 2005)). The point of § 1404(a) “is to prevent the waste of time, energy and money and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense.” Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964) (cleaned up). After considering the above factors and the unique facts of how the case started, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ request to transfer. It would add unnecessary time, energy, expense, and inefficiency to this suit by allowing it to begin in the District where Plaintiffs did not intend to file the case. So the Court transfers this case to the Northern District. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs’ request to transfer is GRANTED. 2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to TRANSFER this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida and CLOSE the Fort Myers file. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on January 8, 2021.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (U.S. 1964)
- Manuel v. Convergys Corp., 430 F.3d 1132 (11th Cir. 2005)
- England v. ITT Thompson Indus., Inc., 856 F.2d 1518 (11th Cir. 1988)